# Carrying Ar-15 on back in mall



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/24352754/man-carrying-gun-on-his-back-in-mall-is-charged-with-a-crime


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

It's people like this that give the rest of us a bad rep.


----------



## Baseballdad12 (Feb 3, 2012)

agree 100%...


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

DIHLON said:


> It's people like this that give the rest of us a bad rep.


AMEN


----------



## just plain bill (Jul 8, 2009)

idiocracy


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

As said, it causes more problems that it cures. But he was within his rights, unless the mall had a known and posted no firearms policy. 
As far as the charges, I think they are BS, nothing but a police force harrassing the public.


----------



## devil1824 (Sep 4, 2010)

It's legal. They should have stopped and questioned him and let him on his way. He should sue the hell out of them!!! 

Would I do it? No. I conceal carry.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

Wow, a True to life," Long Wolf McQualeude"


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

devil1824 said:


> It's legal. They should have stopped and questioned him and let him on his way. He should sue the hell out of them!!!
> 
> Would I do it? No. I conceal carry.


Exactly. Maybe he is good at marketing and knew this would draw publicity for his store. I didn't even know that store existed until I saw this and I go to that mall regularly.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

No, he's not an idiot. The police and the people alarmed are idiots. It is high time we stop cowtowing to the "hysterical"

Would I choose to do so, no. Is he wrong, absolutely not. The police are grossly misinterpreting that law to shape the behavior of the citizens. Unacceptable.


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

SaltyTX said:


> No, he's not an idiot. The police and the people alarmed are idiots. It is high time we stop cowtowing to the "hysterical"
> 
> Would I choose to do so, no. Is he wrong, absolutely not. The police are grossly misinterpreting that law to shape the behavior of the citizens. Unacceptable.


^^^^^This^^^^^^^


----------



## Baseballdad12 (Feb 3, 2012)

cocky a^# punk wanting attention..... guess what, he got it!


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

Somebody doesn't understand the difference of what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

From the comments:rotfl:


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Longshot270 said:


> Somebody doesn't understand the difference of what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do.


Yep. Someone should 'splain that to the officers


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

If I can't vote for both then I must pass.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

It was a 'Look At Me...Look At Me' attention stunt just like all the Robertson hoopla. Some people just feel the need to express themselves in a manner to draw attention and stay in the spotlight. Common sense tells me not to walk through a mall strapped with an assault rifle, whether it is legal or not...GEEZ...Farking Idiot!


----------



## Ducatibilt (Jul 8, 2010)

Anyone else think it was just a marketing stunt for his store?


----------



## captaindorman (Nov 30, 2009)

Didn't he have a store in the mall, and in his store wasn't he allowed to display his gun. Well he has to get it to and from his store every day. I guess he could have put it in a case or just strap it on his back so he can carry the rest of his stuff to his store in one trip.


----------



## Chief5x5 (Apr 25, 2005)

So this man walks into the mall with a violin case, what business does he have with it? It now becomes suspected of everything. Calm down people.


----------



## k_see900 (Sep 14, 2005)

*guilty of not having a gun case*

The guy owns a tactical shop. He sells stuff that goes with said gun. Would the mall be safer if he had it in a gun case, Carried by the handle with the barrel pointed forward?


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

Statement Stunts, make all 2nd amendment supporters, look bad. I understand the point, but bad way to exercise your rights. Put yourself in the cops place, if something went bad.


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

DIHLON said:


> It's people like this that give the rest of us a bad rep.


x2........IN SAN ANTONIO IT IS ILLEGAL TO OPENLY CARRY OR DISPLAY A LONG GUN IN PUBLIC. ITS A CITY ORDNANCE.

ITS STUFF LIKE THIS THAT WILL PUSH THE FENCE RIDERS TO START CRYING FOR A CHANGE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

boltmaster said:


> x2........IN SAN ANTONIO IT IS ILLEGAL TO OPENLY CARRY OR DISPLAY A LONG GUN IN PUBLIC. ITS A CITY ORDNANCE.


If this is true then he got exactly what he was looking for.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Nov 10, 2011)

Tactical shop in a mall? Only in East Texas! When was the last time you actually went to the mall?


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

tbone2374 said:


> Statement Stunts, make all 2nd amendment supporters, look bad. I understand the point, but bad way to exercise your rights. Put yourself in the cops place, if something went bad.


Exactly. You are legally allowed to do lots of stupid things, doesn't mean you should.


----------



## a couple more (Mar 19, 2009)

With everything that has went on in the world in the last couple of years, from mall shootings, to schools and theaters......I'd have to say he is an idiot. Did he not think this would draw negative attention? I support the 2nd amendment, 100%. But use your brain people....


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

can I vote for both poll options?


----------



## ragin (Jun 15, 2013)

Grisham in Temple tx has become the poster child for this behavior,,,, here is the post I posted on his web site.
""I would be curious why anyone would support such obnoxious behavior as that that Grisham displayed. He is a total jerk and an embarrassment to all gun owners. Anyone that is so naive as to support this behavior is a detriment to gun owners, and hurting our cause. If Grish had treated me the way he treated the cop, I would have taken his m-16 from him, bent him over and shoved it up his ***.""


----------



## TranTheMan (Aug 17, 2009)

Bad stunt. What would have happened if he were confronted by a hot-head mall security (aka rent-a-cop dude) and bullets started flying?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Game-Over said:


> If this is true then he got exactly what he was looking for.


it was in Beaumont,TX, and there is no city ordnance against it.



ragin said:


> Grisham in Temple tx has become the poster child for this behavior,,,, here is the post I posted on his web site.
> ""I would be curious why anyone would support such obnoxious behavior as that that Grisham displayed. He is a total jerk and an embarrassment to all gun owners. Anyone that is so naive as to support this behavior is a detriment to gun owners, and hurting our cause. If Grish had treated me the way he treated the cop, I would have taken his m-16 from him, bent him over and shoved it up his ***.""


Yeah, keyboard cowboy messages such as yours are the icing on the cake presenting a level headed argument against such antics


----------



## ROBOWADER (May 22, 2004)

*There was an open carry event at the Alamo a couple months ago.*



boltmaster said:


> x2........IN SAN ANTONIO IT IS ILLEGAL TO OPENLY CARRY OR DISPLAY A LONG GUN IN PUBLIC. ITS A CITY ORDNANCE.
> 
> ITS STUFF LIKE THIS THAT WILL PUSH THE FENCE RIDERS TO START CRYING FOR A CHANGE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.


I was down there working another event and we saw dozens of people carrying all sorts of guns around the downtown area........

Did not see anyone getting harrased by the police.


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

robowader said:


> i was down there working another event and we saw dozens of people carrying all sorts of guns around the downtown area........
> 
> Did not see anyone getting harrased by the police.


was that that staged event at the alamo a few weeks back supporting a movement open carry? It was backed by a state official running for i believe lt. Gov.

The police were there but were told or chose not to take any action.....but i can assure you if you are just toting a long gun openly under most instances you will be stopped. The ordnance is why you don't see any where and many shot guns or 22's hanging in the gun racks of trucks like you used to.

I am not saying i agree with the ordinance but it is in place....i have no idea if anyone has ever been given a ticket...but i do know several that have been stopped and "polity asked to pull guns off racks so that they could not be easily seen by passers by.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Sounds to me like the police officer needs to be canned. This man was well within his rights and not an idiot at all. Imo, those who think he's an idiot need to seriously reevaluate you opinions. Next time it may be you being busted for not breaking the law ... then who will be the idiot. You, for not breaking the law, like this man, or the cop illegally arresting you for not breaking the law, like this brain dead officer.

I can't believe any of you are saying he's an idiot for following the law. Open carry of long guns is legal. He did NOTHING wrong!!!


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

ragin said:


> Grisham in Temple tx has become the poster child for this behavior,,,, here is the post I posted on his web site.
> ""I would be curious why anyone would support such obnoxious behavior as that that Grisham displayed. He is a total jerk and an embarrassment to all gun owners. Anyone that is so naive as to support this behavior is a detriment to gun owners, and hurting our cause. If Grish had treated me the way he treated the cop, I would have taken his m-16 from him, bent him over and shoved it up his ***.""


So you fully support the harassment of gun owner who are totally legal and not violating the law in any shape, form or fashion. So you support the police hassling and arresting people for obeying the law. You have GOT to be kidding me!! Those who take a stand and do what the law allows them to do regardless of power hungry cops who want to take away their rights are heroes, imo, and poster children for all gun owners. I admire them for taking a stand and not rolling over to be kicked by those who want to strip their LEGAL right to carry.

When its YOU having your guns taken away for obeying the law and doing nothing wrong, then lets see if you are still so supportive of gestapo techniques by the police.

Admittedly, he behaved like a jerk, but being a jerk is not against the law or half the world would be in jail. He was well within his rights.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

Out of sight, out of mind.

There were probably a few little old ladies strolling through the mall that day that have never even considered supporting gun control because it has never directly effected them. Now they go to the mall to use their Victoria Secret gift card that Grandpa got them for Christmas and get the bejesus scared out of them by a man carrying an "assault rifle" through the mail. They may vote differently next time. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Baseballdad12 (Feb 3, 2012)

just because you can doesnt mean you should. We are taught to stay aware of our surroundings and we teach our kids the same. I definitely dont want my children out in the general public and some wise guy toting an assault rifle and decide todays the day he is gonna snap.. They should have ground checked him then asked questions..IMHO. No respect for the law and its officials anymore, everyone wants to challenge it.


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

boltmaster said:


> x2........IN SAN ANTONIO IT IS ILLEGAL TO OPENLY CARRY OR DISPLAY A LONG GUN IN PUBLIC. ITS A CITY ORDNANCE.
> 
> ITS STUFF LIKE THIS THAT WILL PUSH THE FENCE RIDERS TO START CRYING FOR A CHANGE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.


Not exactly accurate.

Section 21-153 - can't carry a firearm within city limits at a public park, or public meeting of a governmental body, or a political rally/parade/official meeting or a non-firearms related school/collge/pro athletic event.

21-16 - prohibits a person from carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun on any public street or in a motor vehicle in SA. "Loaded" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Sure, he's within his rights... That being said, as long as the cops have that "carried in a manner calculated to alarm"option he's going to be arrested. It hands the legislative role of defining a crime over to the police, a role that cannot and should not be anywhere near their discretion. Just another "slippery slope"... I think he's pretty much an idiot if he DIDN'T think he was going to be arrested, and he doesn't do the rest of us many favors whether he was or not: that being said, I hope he sues them for false arrest and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court before Obama packs said court with a bunch of anti-gunners..


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

Few things...

Grisham was found guilty of interference with the duties of a peace officer, punishment was a $2000 fine (class B misdemeanor). I don't agree with how Grisham or the cops conducted themselves in the incident, but life goes on.

While I don't think the Beamont cops should have arrested the business owner for carrying the weapon, it's a judgement call by the officer (or his bosses). The law states that "A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly...displays a firearm... in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm." So, if a dozen or so patrons called 911 and were alarmed, the cops are justified in arresting him - doesn't mean they should have.

If I was in the mall and a guy had an AR slung over his shoulder, it would get my attention. I don't carry my AR to HEB, Starbucks or the mall; I have no reason to. In fact, I hate the mall. A lot. Getting angry just thinking about that last time I had to go....


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> Sure, he's within his rights... That being said, as long as the cops have that "carried in a manner calculated to alarm"option he's going to be arrested.





GMTK said:


> While I don't think the Beamont cops should have arrested the business owner for carrying the weapon, it's a judgement call by the officer (or his bosses). The law states that "A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly...displays a firearm... in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm." So, if a dozen or so patrons called 911 and were alarmed, the cops are justified in arresting him - doesn't mean they should have.


X2.

It's kinda like the 1st and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This guy certainly has the right to carry his long gun, but if it causes "alarm" he is going to be talking to the po-po.

The law is very subjective and I doubt the "dozens of calls" helped his argument that he wasn't causing alarm. At least he gets his day in court (if he wants it).


----------



## Hardwired (Jun 12, 2012)

The problem lies with "causing alarm". People being scared does not make a crime if a crime is not being committed.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

A man that carries an AR 15 to a mall filled with women and children is going to scare the hell outta of a lot of innocent people. A person that would knowingly do that in this day and age is a POS. Period.


----------



## Back Bay boy (Apr 7, 2010)

I may think twice about doing it only becouse of the whole Liberal scare things going on with these guns. We are being conditioned on being a police state. While we need to be conditoned that law abiding folks carry these as well.Cops have ARs and are shown all the time with them. Uneducated folks who have bought into the whole you see a man with a gun oh no.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Back Bay boy said:


> I may think twice about doing it only becouse of the whole Liberal scare things going on with these guns. We are being conditioned on being a police state. While we need to be conditoned that law abiding folks carry these as well.Cops have ARs and are shown all the time with them. Uneducated folks who have bought into the whole you see a man with a gun oh no.


 You've also just got the basic issue of that it really doesn't fit. If you ran into a mall riding a horse, it may very well not be illegal, but you're going to stir up some excitement, anxiety, etc.: put on a full-pad football uniform and walk through the mall, you're going to draw some stares. The gun just really doesn't "fit", and is going to stir up some trouble. You can't shoot it in there, it's probably considered massive overkill from a personal-defense perspective in that environment, and it's just going to stand out from "normal" in there.. The ONLY time people walk through a mall with an AR is when a) they're either trying to draw attention to themselves and make a point about carry laws, b) or they're about to go postal. Your average person is going to assume "b", given the media coverage of such events in recent years, and they're going to freak. The second they do, the guy with the gun has pretty much met the definition of "causing alarm", even with the constitutionally vague method of determining same...
That's the only real reason I'll call the guy an idiot and an ***: yes, he's got the right to carry the thing. However, how many people has he scared to death, understandably so given this nation's recent history, in the process of carrying out this little stunt to "exercise his rights"? I don't know about you, but somebody that is intentionally scaring people to death over something like this really qualifies as an ******* in my book. If you want to do this right, organize a well-publicized "carry day" when people know what's going on, and are educated by the event that yes, it is legal to carry such a thing, and no, an AR on your back doesn't make you a homicidal psychopath. In this case, he's not educating anybody, he's just making himself look like a freak and causing a heck of a lot of anxiety for others.


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

Idiot isn't quite strong enough.


----------



## Back Bay boy (Apr 7, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> You've also just got the basic issue of that it really doesn't fit. If you ran into a mall riding a horse, it may very well not be illegal, but you're going to stir up some excitement, anxiety, etc.: put on a full-pad football uniform and walk through the mall, you're going to draw some stares. The gun just really doesn't "fit", and is going to stir up some trouble. You can't shoot it in there, it's probably considered massive overkill from a personal-defense perspective in that environment, and it's just going to stand out from "normal" in there.. The ONLY time people walk through a mall with an AR is when a) they're either trying to draw attention to themselves and make a point about carry laws, b) or they're about to go postal. Your average person is going to assume "b", given the media coverage of such events in recent years, and they're going to freak. The second they do, the guy with the gun has pretty much met the definition of "causing alarm", even with the constitutionally vague method of determining same...
> That's the only real reason I'll call the guy an idiot and an ***: yes, he's got the right to carry the thing. However, how many people has he scared to death, understandably so given this nation's recent history, in the process of carrying out this little stunt to "exercise his rights"? I don't know about you, but somebody that is intentionally scaring people to death over something like this really qualifies as an ******* in my book. If you want to do this right, organize a well-publicized "carry day" when people know what's going on, and are educated by the event that yes, it is legal to carry such a thing, and no, an AR on your back doesn't make you a homicidal psychopath. In this case, he's not educating anybody, he's just making himself look like a freak and causing a heck of a lot of anxiety for others.


I don't disagree with you. Educating the public on these guns is very important. This is not the way to do it. Reminds me of a local DJ here in town Rex Gabriel. We had a open carry assembly on Ocean drive and he jumped on the raido mocking them. Then the next breathe he talked about how he sat his handgun on his motor bike seat and drove off. Before he realised is the gun was gone. He drove back and found it on the road smashed and run over.I wonder how many of them feller made it home from the assembly with there guns. My guess is all of them. Even if we try to educate folks in the right manner the Liberal media is going to make them out to be Militairy style automatic guns.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

Game-Over said:


> X2.
> 
> It's kinda like the 1st and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This guy certainly has the right to carry his long gun, but if it causes "alarm" he is going to be talking to the po-po.
> 
> The law is very subjective and I doubt the "dozens of calls" helped his argument that he wasn't causing alarm. At least he gets his day in court (if he wants it).


Not at all like yelling fire. With FIRE there is a threat. With a gun there is no threat.

Causing alarm isn't based on idiots being alarmed. Causing alarm is him making an action calculated to cause alarm- i.e. waiving it around.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SaltyTX said:


> Not at all like yelling fire. With FIRE there is a threat. With a gun there is no threat.
> 
> Causing alarm isn't based on idiots being alarmed. Causing alarm is him making an action calculated to cause alarm- i.e. waiving it around.


Yelling fire isn't a threat. If there is a fire, it is of course a threat, but just yelling Fire is simply an action meant to cause alarm and to draw attention of the public. Much like carrying an AR through a mall. A reasonable person would know that such an action would cause alarm among some people. He did it anyway. Either he's not reasonable, or he's pretty much guilty as charged. Take your pick.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> Yelling fire isn't a threat. If there is a fire, it is of course a threat, but just yelling Fire is simply an action meant to cause alarm and to draw attention of the public. Much like carrying an AR through a mall. A reasonable person would know that such an action would cause alarm among some people. He did it anyway. Either he's not reasonable, or he's pretty much guilty as charged. Take your pick.


reread what I wrote. I said the actual fire is a threat. The word fire is not a threat.

A gun is not a threat in an of itself. Carrying a gun isn't a threat. Any reasonable person would know that a gun on someone's back is not a threat. Does it warrant that you may become situationally aware? Sure. Just the same as if I seem someone who looks creepy. I don't call the cops when I see a creeper, not would I because someone has a gun.

And again. SOME people being ALARMED is different than someone causing alarm. Walking around a with a weapon is hardly cause for alarm. Should the gun be moved to an at-the-ready stance, then alarm should be raised and quickly.

He did nothing wrong. Anyone who thinks he did must clearly enjoy a police state. It isn't up to gun owners to succumb to the morons, the morons must be educated


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

SaltyTX said:


> reread what I wrote. I said the actual fire is a threat. The word fire is not a threat.
> 
> A gun is not a threat in an of itself. Carrying a gun isn't a threat. Any reasonable person would know that a gun on someone's back is not a threat. Does it warrant that you may become situationally aware? Sure. Just the same as if I seem someone who looks creepy. I don't call the cops when I see a creeper, not would I because someone has a gun.
> 
> ...


This is silly. A person with an AR strapped to his back at a mall is a threat. Any reasonable person that sees a man carrying around an AR in a place where it is out of context should and would be extremely alarmed. To say he isnt a threat till he takes a shooters stance is ludicrus. Might be a little late by then, don't you think? What about a day care center? An elementry school? Nah no need to worry till the shooting starts. The world is full of insane people.


----------



## fishingwithhardheadkings (Oct 10, 2012)

he was hired by an anti-gun group to start some b/s!


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Unneeded Drama


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

poppadawg said:


> This is silly. A person with an AR strapped to his back at a mall is a threat. Any reasonable person that sees a man carrying around an AR in a place where it is out of context should and would be extremely alarmed. To say he isnt a threat till he takes a shooters stance is ludicrus. Might be a little late by then, don't you think? What about a day care center? An elementry school? Nah no need to worry till the shooting starts. The world is full of insane people.


Pappadawg, you shocked me with this post. I thought 2cool was a gun friendly site. We need to do a new poll are you pro-gun or anti-gun. This thread has made me realize how many of the anti 2A crowd are within on 2cool.

There is ZERO threat to a gun!! What is with that thought pattern?? I have a bunch and not ONE of them has ever attacked a person yet. A gun is not a threat and never will be. At least until that gun develops the ability to jump into a person's hands and shoot somebody. No wonder the Gun Control Lobby is so successful with their fear of guns campaign, even on 2cool y'all are buying and repeating their line of BS.

I do agree about the world being full of insane people. (Most of us on this site fit that category. )


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Sorry, Spirit..but I gotta go with Dawg on this one.. I got nothing against ARs...got a couple of them myself in the safe...but that is where they belong...either in my safe...or on the range..or on the hunting lease....Not strolling thru a packed Mall...

None of us know this jackass.. who is to say that if the mall cop hadn't stopped him he might have swung it around and started spraying the crowd. He LOOKED normal....but most crazy people I know LOOK normal. Second Amend gives us the right to keep arms...but common sense should tell us where and when to take them..

OK..fire away.. I can take it...


----------



## Whodathunkit (Aug 25, 2010)

DIHLON said:


> http://www.12newsnow.com/story/24352754/man-carrying-gun-on-his-back-in-mall-is-charged-with-a-crime


Your poll is invalid, I need to be able to select both answers.


----------



## TranTheMan (Aug 17, 2009)

>There is ZERO threat to a gun!!
I would say hoodies also have ZERO threat, but since recently there have been a lot of robberies committed by young men with hoodies, if I were a cashier at a convenient store, I would be a bit alarmed when a young man with hoodie walking into the store.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spirit said:


> Pappadawg, you shocked me with this post. I thought 2cool was a gun friendly site. We need to do a new poll are you pro-gun or anti-gun. This thread has made me realize how many of the anti 2A crowd are within on 2cool.
> 
> There is ZERO threat to a gun!! What is with that thought pattern?? I have a bunch and not ONE of them has ever attacked a person yet. A gun is not a threat and never will be. At least until that gun develops the ability to jump into a person's hands and shoot somebody. No wonder the Gun Control Lobby is so successful with their fear of guns campaign, even on 2cool y'all are buying and repeating their line of BS.
> 
> I do agree about the world being full of insane people. (Most of us on this site fit that category. )


 This isn't a second amendment argument: not a a soul here has argued that he didn't have the right to carry it. It's simply about common sense. We all know that the average idiot walking through a mall isn't going to see that guy and weigh the legal ramifications of his right to carry a long arm in public in Texas: he's going to see a guy with an assault rifle (his perception, not mine) , his mind is going to click back to all the stories he's seen on the news program that came on after "Dancing With The Stars", and his mind is going to go directly to one thing: "Psycho gunman shoots up mall with assault rifle, ten dead including the gunman, film at ten o'clock".. He or she is going to be alarmed. Period.

There's a time and a place for everything: I can go cyclic with an AR in my backyard any time I want to, legally and without question, and have done so on numerous occasions. That being said, if there's one of the organized bicycle rides that are routed here from time to time coming trough here, with hundreds of people on bikes a few hundred yards from me, I generally refrain from doing such a thing just in the interest of simply not alarming a bunch of suburbanites out on their bikes that really just don't understand how we do things out here. That's not me sacrificing my second amendment rights upon the altar of political correctness, it's simply altering my behavior a bit in the interest of not destroying the peace of mind of some of my fellow citizens. In other words, basic courtesy.

This mall incident was similar: it simply was an act that wasn't needed on his part, he knew it was going to cause people anxiety or alarm, and he did it anyway: basic courtesy that would result in his fellow citizens not being alarmed by his actions went by the wayside so that he could proudly proclaim that he's exercising his second amendment rights. Meanwhile, there was probably a few CHL holders exercising their rights too that hobody paid any attention to, because they exercised their rights just as effectively with a little more class and subtlety. This wasn't about exercising his rights: it was about making a very public point. The point has been made on numerous occasions, and it simply could have been made better than his little stunt.. This wasn't an exercise of rights, it was a public show of arrogance that did more harm than good to our pro-second amendment cause.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

TranTheMan said:


> >There is ZERO threat to a gun!!
> I would say hoodies also have ZERO threat, but since recently there have been a lot of robberies committed by young men with hoodies, if I were a cashier at a convenient store, I would be a bit alarmed when a young man with hoodie walking into the store.


That's called 'profiling', Tran...and I HIGHLY approve of it....even put it into practice EVERY DAY at my place of business.. If we look up at the door and you meet certain unspecified stats in OUR books..that door ain't gonna unlock.. This policy was not picked out of the clear blue sky....it was learned thru bitter experience over the years....

*"I rosesm PROFILING "
*


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SaltyTX said:


> reread what I wrote. I said the actual fire is a threat. The word fire is not a threat.
> 
> A gun is not a threat in an of itself. Carrying a gun isn't a threat. Any reasonable person would know that a gun on someone's back is not a threat. Does it warrant that you may become situationally aware? Sure. Just the same as if I seem someone who looks creepy. I don't call the cops when I see a creeper, not would I because someone has a gun.
> 
> ...


 You're making the mistake of assigning the label "reasonable person" to your average mall denizen. That's the farthest thing from the truth. Non-reasonable people occupy this nation too, and their alarm at seeing a pending mall massacre is just as valid as my lack of alarm at seeing a rifle slung on a civilian's back in a mall. They're freaking out, I'm just rolling my eyes. The legal prohibitions against behavior "calculated to alarm" doesn't require the "alarmed person" to be reasonable, nor does it define a level of alarm that is required. He knew he was going to freak some people out: if he didn't, he's not of sound enough mind to carry a gun, legally or morally.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

DW and Tortuga nailed it. There are probably very few people on 2cool who don't own a gun. This site is not and never has been remotely anti gun.


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

spirit said:


> Pappadawg, you shocked me with this post. I thought 2cool was a gun friendly site. We need to do a new poll are you pro-gun or anti-gun. This thread has made me realize how many of the anti 2A crowd are within on 2cool.
> 
> There is ZERO threat to a gun!! What is with that thought pattern?? I have a bunch and not ONE of them has ever attacked a person yet. A gun is not a threat and never will be. At least until that gun develops the ability to jump into a person's hands and shoot somebody. No wonder the Gun Control Lobby is so successful with their fear of guns campaign, even on 2cool y'all are buying and repeating their line of BS.
> 
> I do agree about the world being full of insane people. (Most of us on this site fit that category. )


Pretty much a buncha Yankee wannabes trolling this site. I'm amazed that the "outdoor" men make inane statements like somehow a gun in mall is out or place or dangerous.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Tortuga said:


> Sorry, Spirit..but I gotta go with Dawg on this one.. I got nothing against ARs...got a couple of them myself in the safe...but that is where they belong...either in my safe...or on the range..or on the hunting lease....Not strolling thru a packed Mall...
> 
> None of us know this jackass.. who is to say that if the mall cop hadn't stopped him he might have swung it around and started spraying the crowd. He LOOKED normal....but most crazy people I know LOOK normal. Second Amend gives us the right to keep arms...but common sense should tell us where and when to take them..
> 
> OK..fire away.. I can take it...


Nothing to fire away on, we all have our opinions.  If I were in the mall, instead of behind my keyboard, and a guy walked in with an AR on his back I might feel differently. Personally, I don't have a fear of guns in plain open sight....the times I've looked down the barrel of a gun, those suckers came out of nowhere! If I'd seen them, I might have been a little more careful of my mouth! lol (And personally, I still live in fear someone might see my concealed weapon and have me sent me to jail ... got no desire to invite trouble by carrying my AR to the mall.  )


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Actually, the poll needs a third option: "just exercising his second amendment rights, but he's an idiot"...


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

dwilliams35 said:


> Actually, the poll needs a third option: "just exercising his second amendment rights,*and advertising his 'survival shop'*, but he's an idiot"...


Excuse me, DW...but think your third option should be modified a little...


----------



## The1ThatGotAway (Jun 24, 2009)

I accuse my son of doing things to just test the waters with me... He's gaged his ear lobes, dresses goth, listens to some crazy music and what not. But I am not a cop, and though it offends me, I live with it.

But if you want to challenge the laws and police officers who swore to protect those laws, then you are biting off more than you can chew. some of those laws are misconstrued, and a lot of officers are completely ignorant to the law themselves. And just because you're testing the waters on one law doesn't mean there isn't another written somewhere to cover it.

By all means, go exercise your right, just don't get butthurt when the police have you cuffed. I am all about challenging authority but not at the expense of my freedom, unless about 10,000 of you guys want to join me.


----------



## Seeker (Jul 6, 2009)

I would not have done this.
If he is just seeing what he could get away with. He should have paid two 2nd amendment lawyers to walk beside him while he was exercising his right to "Bare" arms. I promise, this would have turned out totally different. Paid legal advice would have made this guy a superstar. 
That's why you get a good legal adviser so you can fight the extortion system set up to take your money from you. The 2nd amendment is the second amendment. 

Also, had he not had his mag in, with the action locked back in the open position which clearly shows no threat to the general public.. it might have turned out differently. A clear chamber, no mag, with no live ammunition easily accessible is clearly showing no threat to the general public. My personal opinion only. It doesn't mean there can not be a police escort with this guy just to ease the public mind. 

I do have the right to retreat and remove myself from harms way should I feel a threatening situation is at hand. I do practice extreme caution anytime there is a weapon around and I would think others have the same "common respect" for "others" as I do. There is no disputing the feeling of uneasiness. That's what he wanted, that's what he got.

Does it give gun owners a black eye? Yes it does. And it creates just as much animosity as crazy people who commit such demonic.. horrendous acts that are just too painful to talk about. Common sense goes a long way. Make your point if you can afford it. If not, keep that thing in a location where it will do it's job. Hunting, or protecting you and your family. It's not much to ask.

I know people are down on New York about the bills they have passed. 
Standing on time square and the thought of someone with one of these guns on their back scares the stuff out of me and I can see why the laws were passed (and why people are not fighting them in the judicial system). But.. countryside New York should not be held to the same rules as the cities and suburban areas. But then living there is a choice as well. They get to deal with it up there. I'm so glad we do not have to deal with other states problems and issues.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> You're making the mistake of assigning the label "reasonable person" to your average mall denizen. That's the farthest thing from the truth. Non-reasonable people occupy this nation too, and their alarm at seeing a pending mall massacre is just as valid as my lack of alarm at seeing a rifle slung on a civilian's back in a mall. They're freaking out, I'm just rolling my eyes. The legal prohibitions against behavior "calculated to alarm" doesn't require the "alarmed person" to be reasonable, nor does it define a level of alarm that is required. He knew he was going to freak some people out: if he didn't, he's not of sound enough mind to carry a gun, legally or morally.


We have a difference of opinion. As does the legal world. It doesn't usually get so far though.

If you live your life based on the fact that everyone is mentally unstable, your world must be a horrible place. I don't. I don't buy into the fear. if I see someone carrying a gun, the first thing I would do is just be aware. I'm not going to freak out and call the cops. It isn't justified, nor does it make sense.

Sorry, it makes no sense, statistically, or "common sense" as you put it. Common sense has ZERO to do with carrying a gun. It has more to do with someone saying "durr, a gun isn't the problem." Sadly, our country as a whole has flipped towards the mentality that guns are bad and that an AR is even worse. (admittedly, this sentence reads poorly...point it, i'm allowed to carry per the law. period, end of story.)

I wouldn't freak out any more with someone carrying and AR than a 1911 on their hip openly. Why would you, or anyone else?

I am willing to bet that most would not freak out about a cop or military person carrying a gun at the ready in a mall...and heck, I would argue they are just as likely to snap as the guy who walked in with it strapped to their back.

Sorry D. Your argument doesn't hold water. It sounds good on the surface, but in reality...it just panders to the uninformed and the fear driven culture.

**edit** BTW, I reiterate that I may not carry like that. But he does have the right to. And to be prosecuted for exercising your rights is wrong, no matter the justification you want to put on that. People that fear guns should be educated. We shouldn't give in to those who don't like them. They are here to stay and that will never change in our life time.


----------



## DA REEL DADDY (Jun 7, 2005)

Exactly. At this time, in lieu of past events, our society has become terrified in the wake of so many ACTIVE SHOOTER events. Sure it is our right, but don't cause anxiety and fear in public exercising it.

As far as suing and firing the cops, did they not respond to dozen of calls?
I guess next time someone calls regarding a man with a gun, the cops can just say, "Well if he ain't pointing or shooting anyone, I can stay here at 7-11 playing pinball drinking my big gulp" not need for investigation.



Tortuga said:


> Sorry, Spirit..but I gotta go with Dawg on this one.. I got nothing against ARs...got a couple of them myself in the safe...but that is where they belong...either in my safe...or on the range..or on the hunting lease....Not strolling thru a packed Mall...
> 
> None of us know this jackass.. who is to say that if the mall cop hadn't stopped him he might have swung it around and started spraying the crowd. He LOOKED normal....but most crazy people I know LOOK normal. Second Amend gives us the right to keep arms...but common sense should tell us where and when to take them..
> 
> OK..fire away.. I can take it...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SaltyTX said:


> We have a difference of opinion. As does the legal world. It doesn't usually get so far though.
> 
> If you live your life based on the fact that everyone is mentally unstable, your world must be a horrible place. I don't. I don't buy into the fear. if I see someone carrying a gun, the first thing I would do is just be aware. I'm not going to freak out and call the cops. It isn't justified, nor does it make sense.
> 
> ...


 Listen, I'm not in the group that is going to freak out: like I said, I'm just going to roll my eyes, possibly accompanied with an "oh great...." or something when I see that. I'm not going to be terrified of the gun, I'm not going to call the cops, I'm really not going to do anything but sit back and be entertained by the show which is surely about to start... There hasn't been a soul here that has said he DOESN'T have the right to carry like that. It's just a simple recognition of the fact that what is probably the majority of people in this country just simply don't know that, and you're basically slapping them upside the face with it. Like I said before: put together a "carry day": put out the word that this is going to happen, give the cops the heads up that you're about to make a scene here, and you'll probably never see the inside of the same cell that guy has... You'll also educate a whole lot of people that yes, it is perfectly legal to carry like that, and you can do it without perpetrating a massacre. Win-win.

It's probably legal at some level to get a dynamite vest and walk through the same mall with your finger on the button: you're just exercising your own rights. That being said, tell me that somebody isn't within the confines of reason to not have a bit of concern when they see that in a mall.... Similarly, just the fact that you don't see a guy with an AR in a mall every day, and given the basic history we've got with such scenarios, a reasonable person is absolutely going to be concerned: that's not an irrational fear of an inanimate object, it's not a callous disregard for the guy's rights, it's just a fairly logical conclusion based upon the situation at hand and its similarity to past situations.. If I see a gangbanger waltzing into a convenience store in the fifth ward carrying an AK-47, I'm not going to sit back and say "That's just swell... that young gentleman is proudly exercising his second amendment rights to openly carry a long gun in accordance with Texas Law", I'm going to be looking for a way out or, if that doesn't seem possible, looking for the best tactical position for the gunfight that may very well occur. In any case, I am legitimately alarmed, as would any sane person be. He's got just as much of a right to carry that as the guy in the mall does: am I wrong for expecting, or at least considering the possibility of, the worst? The mall is little different in principle: I for one wouldn't be alarmed; somebody with a different set of knowledge on the subject may very well be.

The guy is not being prosecuted for exercising his rights: he's being prosecuted for making what others perceived to be a threat, in full knowledge that he was doing so. If he had shown the slightest regard for others' perceptions, he quite probably could have done this with no arrest even threatened..


----------



## Billphish (Apr 17, 2006)

I probably would have tackled him and took it away.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

I dont go to the mall. My daughter and grandbabies go to mall. I would be extremely alarmed. In light of the recent tragedies no reasonable individual would go strolling through the mall with an AR slung over his back. Period. In addition, it does way more harm then good for gun right advocates. People think there goes another gun nut
Furthermore, if the guy carried it in case, 90% of people wouldn't have even noticed, the other 10 percent would not have cared. Act responsible and there is no issue.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

This idiot wants the bad guys to take him out first so he can wake up knowing he armed them for their next heist.


----------



## hunterjck (Sep 30, 2010)

*Carrying AR-15 in Parkdale Mall*

I am progun and anti-idiot.
As a youngster (75 yrs. ago) my home was on the Southern Edge of Downtown Beaumont, TX. The bridge over the Neches River leading to the woods, bayous and swamp where we boys spent our days hiking, camping, fishing and "messing around" was on the Northeastern Edge of the business district. Many times I carried my Winchester Model 1906 .22 rifle openly from home to the bridge bypassing the center of town but around the edge with never anyone paying any notice to me.
Today that would be a foolish thing to do even tho it would be "legal".
Doing something just because it's "legal" may not be the "right" thing to do.
People abusing their "rights" causes more restrictions to be passed to protect the public because you can't read the perps' mind and know their intentions.
Good behavior starts at home with the parents but at some point the individual becomes solely responsible for his actions.
If the Parkdale Idiot gets away with his act unpunished surely more will follow just to "show off" and we do not want that.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

poppadawg said:


> I dont go to the mall. My daughter and grandbabies go to mall. I would be extremely alarmed. In light of the recent tragedies no reasonable individual would go strolling through the mall with an AR slung over his back. Period. In addition, it does way more harm then good for gun right advocates. People think there goes another gun nut
> Furthermore, if the guy carried it in case, 90% of people wouldn't have even noticed, the other 10 percent would not have cared. Act responsible and there is no issue.


Just wanted to say "Sorry!" if my other post offended. After re-reading it, I sounded rather snippy and snotty -- I didn't mean for it too.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

No offense taken. Thanks honey
(Per Tortugas thread)


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

hunterjck said:


> I am progun and anti-idiot.
> As a youngster (75 yrs. ago) my home was on the Southern Edge of Downtown Beaumont, TX. The bridge over the Neches River leading to the woods, bayous and swamp where we boys spent our days hiking, camping, fishing and "messing around" was on the Northeastern Edge of the business district. Many times I carried my Winchester Model 1906 .22 rifle openly from home to the bridge bypassing the center of town but around the edge with never anyone paying any notice to me.
> Today that would be a foolish thing to do even tho it would be "legal".
> Doing something just because it's "legal" may not be the "right" thing to do.
> ...


Thanks HJ. You said it much better than I did. Hey did you by chance know a Phil Hall?


----------



## hunterjck (Sep 30, 2010)

*AR-15 in Parkdale Mall*

I live in Beaumont and an earlier poster said Beaumont does not have an ordinance prohibiting carrying AR15s openly in public places like Parkdale Mall. If that is the case, I expect that soon there will be a committee begging the city council to hurry to pass a law to keep the public safe.
That moron was just trying to show off and he ended up with a lot more attention than he can handle.
Hopefully Parkdale will cancel his lease so he can take his business elsewhere and also not benefit from the notoriety he has generated.


----------



## Melon (Jun 1, 2004)

Be carefull what you post if you own one.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> The guy is not being prosecuted for exercising his rights: he's being prosecuted for making what others perceived to be a threat, in full knowledge that he was doing so. If he had shown the slightest regard for others' perceptions, he quite probably could have done this with no arrest even threatened..


And everything you wrote before is drivel. He is being charged with disorderly, which is a horsepoo charge by the cops because _he broke zero laws _with his action. Rather than do their job properly, the cops decided to book him and take him away. They could have easily just talked to him, let him be or if they were really worried, leave a cop next to him until he got to his store. Charging him for doing what is legal is bunk.

Carrying a gun does not make others feel threatened and even if it does, it does not matter one lick. He didn't hold it in a manner to cause alarm- that's a pretty easy criteria. A slung weapon on your back does not cause alarm and if it does, it is NOT because of the gun owner. Ergo, not in violation.

If people are ignorant that carrying a long gun is legal (and scared of guns,) that is THEIR problem. The more those fools are pandered too, the more the guns are restricted. Funny how you say we have to hide from those fearful of guns. It is such backwards logic.

Saying "oh in todays world....with our history" is nonsense. You're right, if some gang banger looking guy walked in, I might give the situation more pause than if some 'normal' clean looking guy came in. If someone walked in with a sawed off, that's different too. Situationally aware is something people may need to be taught these days, I don't know.

In the end. The cops did wrong. The citizens that "were in fear for their lives" did wrong. They both need to be educated.


----------



## bigpun91 (Oct 2, 2005)

SaltyTX said:


> And everything you wrote before is drivel. He is being charged with disorderly, which is a horsepoo charge by the cops because _he broke zero laws _with his action. Rather than do their job properly, the cops decided to book him and take him away. They could have easily just talked to him, let him be or if they were really worried, leave a cop next to him until he got to his store. Charging him for doing what is legal is bunk.
> 
> Carrying a gun does not make others feel threatened and even if it does, it does not matter one lick. He didn't hold it in a manner to cause alarm- that's a pretty easy criteria. A slung weapon on your back does not cause alarm and if it does, it is NOT because of the gun owner. Ergo, not in violation.
> 
> ...


WOW...just...WOW


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SaltyTX said:


> And everything you wrote before is drivel. He is being charged with disorderly, which is a horsepoo charge by the cops because _he broke zero laws _with his action. Rather than do their job properly, the cops decided to book him and take him away. They could have easily just talked to him, let him be or if they were really worried, leave a cop next to him until he got to his store. Charging him for doing what is legal is bunk.
> 
> Carrying a gun does not make others feel threatened and even if it does, it does not matter one lick. He didn't hold it in a manner to cause alarm- that's a pretty easy criteria. A slung weapon on your back does not cause alarm and if it does, it is NOT because of the gun owner. Ergo, not in violation.
> 
> ...


 It's just quite simply a matter of what SHOULD have happened, vs. what is going to happen in the real world, and what DID happen here. This was pretty much standard operating procedure in the real world. He knew exactly what was going to happen, and it happened. If I did the same thing, I would expect it to happen just like that, and it would. At some point you just have to apply the "perfect world" situation you're speaking of to reality, and it's going to fall short: you end up with the gun carrier being arrested for disorderly conduct, which is quite simply the "broken taillight" of the non-traffic world, people ARE going to be alarmed because that's how our society has conditioned them, the media IS going to freak out, and you're going to drum up numerous threads on various forums as a result.

I have no problem with your premise whatsoever: you're absolutely right. On the other hand, we also have to live in the real world, and in that real world our actions have effects: the effect of this one was to make gun owners look like nutjobs, just because the guy put his personal exercise of rights above all else, including the general public peace.. Nobody got educated about the open carry laws, about the 2nd amendment, about gun owners being rational people: they got educated that there was this creepy guy walking around in the mall with a machine gun and they all are lucky to have got out of there alive... You and I both know that's hogwash, but that's the lesson the general public has learned from this.

This is the 2nd amendment version of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" issue; there was no threat, just like there doesn't have to be a fire... The basic concept is that the alarm was a result of the possibility that there was a threat, not an actual visible threat; if you hear there's a fire, you get out. If you hear there's an active shooter in a mall, you get out; you don't have to actually see or hear that in order to reasonably and prudently act on it.

Yes, the cops did it wrong: of course, they were backed into a corner; either just let a growing freak-out of the general public keep on going, or pull out that "broken taillight" and remove the guy that is causing said freak-out out of the situation. It would be pretty problematic to just sit down everybody in that mall and say "settle down people, he's got the right to do this": It's easier in a peace-keeping mode to just remove the problem and deal with it later: that's what they did. Charges will probably be dropped, the situation is resolved. All we have now to deal with is the negative effects that he's hung on all gun owners necks in the eyes of the general public with this little stunt..

This whole incident was awash in screw-ups: the public screwed up by not knowing what his rights were and overreacting based on recent events: the cops screwed up by arresting him, although they really had gotten to the point where if it wasn't that screw up they selected, it was going to be something else. Above all, the guy screwed up by just not giving a **** what anybody thought, he was going to make a very public demonstration, and won't accept the resulting inevitable fallout of the stunt.

On top of all that, the second that you said you'd pay more attention to a gangbanger carrying an AK, your argument fell flat: you're doing the exact same thing everybody in that mall did. The gangbanger had the same rights that guy in the mall had to open carry. The people in the mall made a decision based on their assessment of the situation, just like you "did" when the guy with an AK walked in. The AK is not a threat either. Everybody has their own level of situational awareness, everybody has their own "triggers" of what puts them on edge, everybody has their own irrational fears. You can't fault the people in the mall if their "trigger" got pulled, if you admit you've got your own "trigger" which just takes different stimuli..


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> And everything you wrote before is drivel. He is being charged with disorderly, which is a horsepoo charge by the cops because _he broke zero laws _with his action. Rather than do their job properly, the cops decided to book him and take him away. They could have easily just talked to him, let him be or if they were really worried, leave a cop next to him until he got to his store. Charging him for doing what is legal is bunk.
> 
> Carrying a gun does not make others feel threatened and even if it does, it does not matter one lick. He didn't hold it in a manner to cause alarm- that's a pretty easy criteria. A slung weapon on your back does not cause alarm and if it does, it is NOT because of the gun owner. Ergo, not in violation.
> 
> ...


 Hey salty, If someone carrying a gun does not make you feel threatened , why do you carry one? I know why I carry, that is because of threats seen and unseen.


----------



## rtoler (Apr 9, 2006)

Carrying a concealed fire arm should be comforting, not comfortableâ€¦..


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

SaltyTX said:


> And everything you wrote before is drivel. He is being charged with disorderly, which is a horsepoo charge by the cops because _he broke zero laws _with his action. Rather than do their job properly, the cops decided to book him and take him away. They could have easily just talked to him, let him be or if they were really worried, leave a cop next to him until he got to his store. Charging him for doing what is legal is bunk.
> 
> *Carrying a gun does not make others feel threatened and even if it does, it does not matter one lick. He didn't hold it in a manner to cause alarm- that's a pretty easy criteria. A slung weapon on your back does not cause alarm and if it does, it is NOT because of the gun owner.* Ergo, not in violation.
> 
> ...


Your opinion.

a soccer mom with 3 kids in tow, or a gaggle of old-lady mall-walkers is going to have an entirely different opinion on what is alarming.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I would not do it, and I am all for 2nd amendment rights. But that is asking for trouble. If he wants to fight for a cause, stop the revolving door of the jails and prisons and try to actually rehabilitate people. With the current way our jails work, there are just too many crazies out there for the police to allow this behavior; they must find some reason to arrest him for the public safety.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> And everything you wrote before is drivel. He is being charged with disorderly, which is a horsepoo charge by the cops because _he broke zero laws _with his action. Rather than do their job properly, the cops decided to book him and take him away. They could have easily just talked to him, let him be or if they were really worried, leave a cop next to him until he got to his store. Charging him for doing what is legal is bunk.
> 
> Carrying a gun does not make others feel threatened and even if it does, it does not matter one lick. He didn't hold it in a manner to cause alarm- that's a pretty easy criteria. A slung weapon on your back does not cause alarm and if it does, it is NOT because of the gun owner. Ergo, not in violation.
> 
> ...


You are confusing the ideal of law with the reality of law. In a purely theoretical world yes, nobody should have been concerned because he was breaking no law. In reality when someone is walking around with an ar-15 slung on their back it is going to get the result we see here.

I am a strong supporter of the second amendment but if I see a guy walking down my street with an AR on his back I am calling the police plain and simple.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

TxBrewer said:


> You are confusing the ideal of law with the reality of law. In a purely theoretical world yes, nobody should have been concerned because he was breaking no law. In reality when someone is walking around with an ar-15 slung on their back it is going to get the result we see here.
> 
> I am a strong supporter of the second amendment but if I see a guy walking down my street with an AR on his back I am calling the police plain and simple.


 I wouldn't be the one calling the police; that's just adding to the hysteria. Maybe go out there and tell the guy "come on, dude: you're scaring the neighbors; can you do all of the rest of us gun owners a favor and put that in a case or something?


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> On top of all that, the second that you said you'd pay more attention to a gangbanger carrying an AK, your argument fell flat: you're doing the exact same thing everybody in that mall did. The gangbanger had the same rights that guy in the mall had to open carry.


Not quite, I just said I would pay more attention, not that I would call the cops any faster. I agree they have the same rights and would never argue otherwise.

The rest, the fire comment aside, I get your view. As a society and as people who believe in gun rights, we must change the argument if anything is ever to change. We cannot keep pandering to the moron cops and the moron public who freaks out about a gun in a safe position, with no theat perceived.



lil mambo said:


> Hey salty, If someone carrying a gun does not make you feel threatened , why do you carry one? I know why I carry, that is because of threats seen and unseen.


Nobody will ever know whether I carry or not, unless I carry a long gun somewhere. Are you suggesting someone with a gun is an automatic threat? I hope not...



speckle-catcher said:


> Your opinion.
> 
> a soccer mom with 3 kids in tow, or a gaggle of old-lady mall-walkers is going to have an entirely different opinion on what is alarming.


Opinion isn't relevant here. The whole idea is to prevent a goomba from waving a long gun around, that is intentionally causing alarm. Seeing a gun, by definition is not alarming to a reasonable person. Those who are alarmed in a safe situation must be educated, not catered to.



TxBrewer said:


> You are confusing the ideal of law with the reality of law. In a purely theoretical world yes, nobody should have been concerned because he was breaking no law. In reality when someone is walking around with an ar-15 slung on their back it is going to get the result we see here.
> 
> I am a strong supporter of the second amendment but if I see a guy walking down my street with an AR on his back I am calling the police plain and simple.


I am confusing nothing. The problem is when people add in silly input and twist laws to suit needs. Law is simple, cops were wrong. Keeping the peace by removing a non-threat is faulty cop work, every day of the week. Sure, it is easier, but that does not make it proper. Again, we must reframe the argument or gun owners will always lose. As a strong supporter, you should understand this.

Why would you call the cops? What if he had a Remington 870 or a 30-30? Are those not as dangerous? What about the CC guy? He has a gun..strong supporter? I am not so sure. Seems like strong when it fits your personal definition...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SaltyTX said:


> Not quite, I just said I would pay more attention, not that I would call the cops any faster. I agree they have the same rights and would never argue otherwise.


 Are you suggesting that everybody in the mall called the cops? Reporting such an incident is just one level of reaction in a whole spectrum, from "paying more attention" to total freak-out and hide in a corner crying.. The sheer fact that you do ANYTHING different, even as much as paying more attention, to that gangbanger pretty much destroys the concept that the guy in the mall is not worthy of a reaction.



SaltyTX said:


> The rest, the fire comment aside, I get your view. As a society and as people who believe in gun rights, we must change the argument if anything is ever to change. We cannot keep pandering to the moron cops and the moron public who freaks out about a gun in a safe position, with no theat perceived.
> .


 That's just it: the threat WAS perceived. Perceived is a personal consideration: you may perceive a threat differently than I do. The moron in the mall is certainly going to perceive a threat differently than either of us. The real test is whether a reasonable person could have legitimately perceived a threat: there are reasonable people out there, with different sets of priorities, upbringings, environment, etc. etc. that would legitimately and realistically perceive a threat from this. The lowest common denominator among reasonable people is really the test here.. To somebody with a house full of AR's and a knowledge of the carry law, it's not a threat. To somebody whose total exposure to those rifles is TV accounts of mall massacres, you can dang sure bet that it is going to be legitimately perceived to be a threat. Two different thought-out, reasonable reactions given the situation WILL ensue..


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> Not quite, I just said I would pay more attention, not that I would call the cops any faster. I agree they have the same rights and would never argue otherwise.
> 
> The rest, the fire comment aside, I get your view. As a society and as people who believe in gun rights, we must change the argument if anything is ever to change. We cannot keep pandering to the moron cops and the moron public who freaks out about a gun in a safe position, with no theat perceived.
> 
> ...


 [quote salty TX]somewhere. Are you suggesting someone with a gun is an automatic threat? I hope not...Nobody will ever know whether I carry or not, unless I carry a long gun [/quote]

If there are no threats out there why do you carry? Is it a fashion statement? And to answer your question, anyone carrying a firearm is a potential threat, even family.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

lil mambo said:


> anyone carrying a firearm is a potential threat, even family.


Including the police that arrested him.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

boom! said:


> Especially the police that arrested him.


FIFY...


----------



## Walkin' Jack (May 20, 2004)

Unnecessarily confrontational. Only an idiot would do it.


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

An AR is a perfect self defense weapon for a mall. It allows you to engage a target at close or longer range with pinpoint accuracy and provides plenty of rounds. If you have multiple targets.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

stdreb27 said:


> An AR is a perfect self defense weapon for a mall. It allows you to engage a target at close or longer range with pinpoint accuracy and provides plenty of rounds. If you have multiple targets.


It's also a relatively effective offensive weapon if you just feel like perpetrating a massacre..


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> No, he's not an idiot. The police and the people alarmed are idiots. It is high time we stop cowtowing to the "hysterical"
> 
> Would I choose to do so, no. Is he wrong, absolutely not. The police are grossly misinterpreting that law to shape the behavior of the citizens. Unacceptable.


^ this.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

SaltyTX said:


> No, he's not an idiot. The police and the people alarmed are idiots. It is high time we stop cowtowing to the "hysterical"
> 
> Would I choose to do so, no. Is he wrong, absolutely not. The police are grossly misinterpreting that law to shape the behavior of the citizens. Unacceptable.


x1000


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> It was a 'Look At Me...Look At Me' attention stunt just like all the Robertson hoopla. Some people just feel the need to express themselves in a manner to draw attention and stay in the spotlight. Common sense tells me not to walk through a mall strapped with an assault rifle, whether it is legal or not...GEEZ...Farking Idiot!


Sounds like any gay pride parade should be illegal also, on top of many other things.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

We are all so afraid! We need big brother to keep us safe all the time. Please...
It's either legal or not. There's a lot of things that other people do that scare me, but if it's legal then too bad.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*I support the CCL holder in the mall who drew down on him*

Hypothetically, I support the guy who might have seen that idiot, drew down on him with his concealed handgun, disarmed him and made him lie face down on the floor until police arrived.

If that had happened and the CCL holder was arrested, who would you support then?


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Johnboat said:


> Hypothetically, I support the guy who might have seen that idiot, drew down on him with his concealed handgun, disarmed him and made him lie face down on the floor until police arrived.
> 
> If that had happened and the CCL holder was arrested, who would you support then?


Don't hijack a thread john. :headknock


----------



## Saltwater Boy(1) (Jan 11, 2013)

I would like to jump to conclusions and make a statement, but what is the actual story behind this? Interview with him?


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

Johnboat said:


> Hypothetically, I support the guy who might have seen that idiot, drew down on him with his concealed handgun, disarmed him and made him lie face down on the floor until police arrived.
> 
> If that had happened and the CCL holder was arrested, who would you support then?


Lol stir the pot much?


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Johnboat said:


> Hypothetically, I support the guy who might have seen that idiot, drew down on him with his concealed handgun, disarmed him and made him lie face down on the floor until police arrived.
> 
> If that had happened and the CCL holder was arrested, who would you support then?


If a chl holder draws on me while I am within my legal rights he/she best have legal counsel on retainer.


----------



## FlounderMaster (Dec 10, 2013)

People want to scream about their rights then call someone stupid or wanting attention. This guy was within his rights and expressed them, good for him .. More should do it to stand up to these so on so called cops and goverment officials these days.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> I am confusing nothing. The problem is when people add in silly input and twist laws to suit needs. Law is simple, cops were wrong. Keeping the peace by removing a non-threat is faulty cop work, every day of the week. Sure, it is easier, but that does not make it proper. Again, we must reframe the argument or gun owners will always lose. As a strong supporter, you should understand this.
> 
> Why would you call the cops? What if he had a Remington 870 or a 30-30? Are those not as dangerous? What about the CC guy? He has a gun..strong supporter? I am not so sure. Seems like strong when it fits your personal definition...


Yes, I see a guy walking down my street with a gun over his shoulder I am going to contact the police. Sorry open carry is a great law for pistols or other holstered weapons but carrying a AR or similar long gun in a subdivision is going to get a chat with the police.

If the police didn't and the guy goes off on a shooting spree do you think anyone will accept or forgive the police for letting him pass? Again this is the difference between reality and the law in a vacuum.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

TxBrewer said:


> Yes, I see a guy walking down my street with a gun over his shoulder I am going to contact the police. Sorry open carry is a great law for pistols or other holstered weapons but carrying a AR or similar long gun in a subdivision is going to get a chat with the police.
> 
> If the police didn't and the guy goes off on a shooting spree do you think anyone will accept or forgive the police for letting him pass? Again this is the difference between reality and the law in a vacuum.


I'm saddened and confused.

Why is the pistol ok? What if he has a Glock 16 (or other similar)? Easy to put 19 rounds, or 33 with a long mag. get a belt holster for the unused, but filled mags and viola! I think the pistol bullets hurt just as much as a rifle bullet.

I don't follow. Please help.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

lil mambo said:


> If there are no threats out there why do you carry? Is it a fashion statement? And to answer your question, anyone carrying a firearm is a potential threat, even family.


I presume someone who carries (I still won't declare whether I carry or not...not particularly relevant, is it?) would like the potential to defend themselves in case of a threat. Much like dude with an AR on their back. Some carry little bersa 380s, some carry the Judge, some carry ARs.

I'm all for it. Gangbanger, country hick, soccer mom...doesn't matter. They all have rights. Once they start acting threatening, we're allowed to neutralize the threat. Simply carrying a gun doesn't make you much more of a threat than the mom with 5 kids...Start acting a fool, then the situation could change.

Of course, all this is off-topic...but I wanted to answer.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

In the 1800's they understood that our right to liberty and freedom comes from God - not Congress. A beautiful song with beautiful words and an affirmation of truth. A truth sadly neglected and forgotten. We only ever sing the first verse, sad. Some people over 50 have forgotten what freedom and liberty are, those under 30 have never known it, those in between seem to have no drive to protect it. 

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From ev'ry mountainside
Let freedom ring!
2
My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.
3
Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.
4
Our fathers' God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King. 

When we have given all our rights away, what will be left with?

As I told my mother who disagrees with my view on this a little earlier, I am not defending his boneheaded move, but I will argue till doomsday his right to not be arrested for OBEYING the law. He was not disturbing the peace or whatever the bogus charge they filed was, he was walking through a mall minding his own business.

So we pass a law to make it illegal to carry long guns in a mall. What does that really accomplish? When we willingly give up our rights, liberty and freedoms in one area, be prepared for them to taken in another.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*Sling a black rifle in a mall and IMO you are a target.*

I'm sorry, but I think the normal response for a responsible person in our world is if you can, attack the rifleman with whatever weapon is at your disposal. He may pay the price for stupid, you may see the inside of a jail, but we ain't doing no more mall shootings. Not in this country.

Maybe some of y'all in the waaay minority of the poll should review this.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

The question for the poll wasn't whether he should have been arrested or not. It was whether he made a poor choice or not. I agree, I don't believe he should have been arrested. But I do believe he should have been told "hey dumb***, use some common freakin' sense and put it in a case" and then escorted out. I carry in public all the time but it is concealed. As I stated before, out of sight, out of mind, and the "ignorant" of the laws won't get their feathers ruffled.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Johnboat said:


> I'm sorry, but I think the normal response for a responsible person in our world is if you can, attack the rifleman with whatever weapon is at your disposal. He may pay the price for stupid, you may see the inside of a jail, but we ain't doing no more mall shootings. Not in this country.
> 
> Maybe some of y'all in the waaay minority of the poll should review this.


If we were in Kenya, I would agree with you. But this is America. We have liberties and freedoms that many other countries don't have. And many of us have given some of our lives to protect those freedoms.


----------



## aggieanglr (Oct 1, 2007)

KeeperTX said:


> x1000


AMEN!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

I think he's well within his rights, but the problem is he's causing a national uproar that could eventually jeopardize those rights by putting unnecessary pressure on lawmakers. Common sense failed to intervene here.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Johnboat said:


> I'm sorry, but I think the normal response for a responsible person in our world is if you can, attack the rifleman with whatever weapon is at your disposal. He may pay the price for stupid, you may see the inside of a jail, but we ain't doing no more mall shootings. Not in this country.
> 
> Maybe some of y'all in the waaay minority of the poll should review this.


Here is a general rule of thumb, if a guy has a rifle slung over his back and a soda in one hand and a burger in the other you are probably ok.
If a guy has a rifle out in front with his bugger hook on the bang button AND is wearing a mask then you might want to take him out.
Is it really that hard?


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Category5 said:


> I think he's well within his rights, but the problem is he's causing a national uproar that could eventually jeopardize those rights by putting unnecessary pressure on lawmakers. Common sense failed to intervene here.


x1000. Be conscientious of your behavior and how it affects others. Put it in a gun case and there wouldn't be an issue. I seriously doubt there is a very long line of patriots willing to lay down their life so some dipchit can scare the daylights out of women and children. Act responsible.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

poppadawg said:


> x1000. *Be conscientious of your behavior and how it affects others.* Put it in a gun case and there wouldn't be an issue. *I seriously doubt there is a very long line of patriots willing to lay down their life so some dipchit can scare the daylights out of women and children. Act responsible.*


I beg to differ. Have you looked at other drivers on the highway? What percentage of them are looking down at an iphone instead of at the road ahead of them? And yes, they scare women, children, and even men.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Category5 said:


> I think he's well within his rights, but the problem is he's causing a national uproar that could eventually jeopardize those rights by putting unnecessary pressure on lawmakers. Common sense failed to intervene here.


^^^^^^This is spot on.^^^^^^


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

KeeperTX said:


> I beg to differ. Have you looked at other drivers on the highway? What percentage of them are looking down at an iphone instead of at the road ahead of them? And yes, they scare women, children, and even men.


So the behavior of one set of idiots negates the behavior of the other idiot? If your point is there are alot of idiots, I agree.


----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)

poppadawg said:


> x1000. Be conscientious of your behavior and how it affects others. Put it in a gun case and there wouldn't be an issue. I seriously doubt there is a very long line of patriots willing to lay down their life so some dipchit can scare the daylights out of women and children. Act responsible.


X2


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*This honey badger don't care*

I don't care about his belief about exercising his "rights"

I don't care about his intelligence, or his judgment, or his common sense.

I don't care if he was conscious of the effect of his behavior on the rights of all of us as black rifle owners.

I don't care if by a CCL holder, or a couple of fathers grabbing baseball bats at a sports store in the mall. That guy should have been stopped before the police got there.

Hypothetical: You are a father and CCL holder carrying your usual Kimber 45 in your waistband out of sight. Your wife and two pre-teen daughters are in the mall. They are your whole world. They are the reason you bought that Kimber and the reason you got your CCL. You are in the mall to meet them for lunch and you run into this guy walking towards where your family is. You remember those nice folks in the upscale mall in Kenya that you saw on TV. Not your nationality, but doing just what you and your family are doing right now. No cops in sight. What do you do?


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Looks like the idiot is having a little trouble getting his AR back...

Nice clean cut young feller...wearing black shirt....with AR draped over his shoulder... in a mall full of people.... Nothing to worry about here folks.. let's just keep movin'......


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

The prosecutor should delay the trial several times. Its all good if its legal, right?


----------



## $TACK (Nov 22, 2013)

I'm all about my rights but actions like this don't help our cause. I agree that they may put too much pressure on the politicians that are in our corner or at least on the fence about this issue and put a terrible image of gun ownership in the minds of the uninformed public. Yes I think this guy should do something about the actions taken toward him since he was within his rights. But in the future I think we can do without these actions that raise these concerns for our fellow gun owners


----------



## Mick R. (Apr 21, 2011)

$TACK said:


> I'm all about my rights but actions like this don't help our cause. I agree that they may put too much pressure on the politicians that are in our corner or at least on the fence about this issue and put a terrible image of gun ownership in the minds of the uninformed public. Yes I think this guy should do something about the actions taken toward him since he was within his rights. But in the future I think we can do without these actions that raise these concerns for our fellow gun owners


You're absolutely right. These open carry clowns that like to parade around in public places carrying their AR's are going to keep poking the bear till they force the legislature to prohibit open carry of long arms.

Use a little common sense, people. (And this is coming from a lifetime member of the NRA (1975) who has bought, traded, and sold firearms for over 40 yrs.)


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> I'm saddened and confused.
> 
> Why is the pistol ok? What if he has a Glock 16 (or other similar)? Easy to put 19 rounds, or 33 with a long mag. get a belt holster for the unused, but filled mags and viola! I think the pistol bullets hurt just as much as a rifle bullet.
> 
> I don't follow. Please help.


A weapon on a hip holster is a defensive weapon, walking down the street of a subdivision with an AR is not a defensive position of any rational. Sure you can say you are using it for defense but you are doing it to provoke a response. Well walk down my street and you will get that response. It's a common sense thing that some supporters of the second amendment don't get. They are doing more damage in my opinion than good.


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

One of our range rules is that all firearms should be in a holster or case until you reach the firing line. This is simply a safety measure to prevent accidents. If you tell the range owner that it is your right to carry on a sling, prepare to be thrown off the range permanently.

I have hunted and shot target for 62 years and value 2A. If I saw someone with a rifle walking in a mall, it would cause me much concern. It would have been very easy to have had the rifle cased had he a reason to transport it which would have been perceived in a different light.

There are idiots out there who shoot innocent people, so you should be aware of unusual things for your own protection. What the less than intelligent bum did was provocative. Getting on your soap box and defending him concerns me in that your opinion is not well thought out. The next time someone enters a place like this, it may be your loved ones who discover that he is not an innocent firearms owner.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

Category5 said:


> I think he's well within his rights, but the problem is he's causing a national uproar that could eventually jeopardize those rights by putting unnecessary pressure on lawmakers. Common sense failed to intervene here.


Exactly this.

Legally he was fine and shouldn't have been arrested but he is creating a problem that doesn't need to be created.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

TxBrewer said:


> A weapon on a hip holster is a defensive weapon, walking down the street of a subdivision with an AR is not a defensive position of any rational. Sure you can say you are using it for defense but you are doing it to provoke a response. Well walk down my street and you will get that response. *It's a common sense thing that some supporters of the second amendment don't get.* They are doing more damage in my opinion than good.


Bold statement, but I'd argue it. A right is a right. Period. End of story.

Gun owners have allowed the national belief/stage to be warped to make them look like they are the minority and that they are evil. It has been warped to in such a way that gun owners are twisted into a position where they are forced to defend their right.

That's the mistake of all this. How can a supporter of the 2nd amendment bow down to such nonsense? How is the 2nd amendment supposed to be defended if not by changing the incorrect national stage? I argue that it is impossible.

I completely disagree that you decide classify weapons as defensive or offensive based on your needs for your argument. A gun is a gun is a gun. That Glock I mentioned does just as much damage, it just looks different. They all serve the same purpose in the end- to throw a projectile at hundreds or thousands of feet per second.

You're also wrong about doing it solely to provoke a response. That right there proves my "faulty arugment/national stage" argument. You've fallen victim. Regarding the gun who are "you" to tell me what I need to defend myself? What is the line? Only handguns? What about if I have a pack of rabid dogs? Wouldn't a shotty be better? hy can't I engage a threat at a safe distance- pistol puts me in more danger...AR would be a fine defensive solution in an urban setting.


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

Face the facts. Gun owners are a minority whether we like it or not.

You have one group who are dead set against firearms, another who really do not concern themselves with the subject, and a group who are fearful of losing their rights to be gun owners.

As a gun owner, I feel that it is in our best interest to put forward a sensible face for those who really have no interest in guns one way or the other. Getting into peoples faces and standing on soap boxes defeats our position. Should the antis be successful in putting our right to a vote, we have much to lose.

I have noticed over the years that those with an inferiority issue tend to be the most vocal. Consider the way your actions will be viewed by others.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

SaltyTX said:


> Bold statement, but I'd argue it. A right is a right. Period. End of story.
> 
> Gun owners have allowed the national belief/stage to be warped to make them look like they are the minority and that they are evil. It has been warped to in such a way that gun owners are twisted into a position where they are forced to defend their right.
> 
> ...


Mass shootings have made America very sensitive to the amount of damage a deranged individual can do in a public place. Especially an enviroment filled with women and children. Anybody that would walk into an enviroment like that with an AR on his back is a nut that doesn't care about anybody but himself. If you cant see where that does more harm then good for gun owners your nuts too.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

It's always amazing to me how many people just give up on the entire concept of "just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it" when it comes to this issue. I CAN run full speed into the barbed wire fence behind my house. That doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really ought to expect to be cut up if I do something so stupid. I CAN run up behind the bull on the other side of that fence and kick him in the nads.. That doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really ought to expect to have him stomp a mudhole into my face if I do something so stupid. I CAN tell my wife that yes, that dress makes her look fat. Yada yada yada, whatever I deserve, I'll get. I CAN walk down a public street, mall, whatever with an AR on my back, that doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really shouldn't be surprised when the reaction from the public is less than wonderfully warm.. 

Sorry, my parents raised me to consider other people's feelings on the matter before I acted: they taught me to not do something that would make some young mother grab her kid and run from me just in case I had evil intent. They taught me not to make an overt, arrogant action just to draw attention to myself, to do anything that would put the police on the spot as to HAVE to make up something to charge me with just to remove me from the scene when I'm making an *** of myself.

"Standing up for my principles" Doesn't necessarily require me to make a complete *** of myself, make ANYBODY else uncomfortable or alarmed in any way, or require me to basically abandon any class and decorum in public... Yes, if you really want to get technical my 2nd amendment right trumps their right not to be alarmed. That in no way means that I have to seek out opportunities to force that particular battle, nor even means that I SHOULD do that. If a 2nd amendment advocate is searching desperately for a means to alienate the voting public, this is it...

The second amendment is to protect us from prosecution for possessing firearms for a very real purpose: it's not carte blanche to do anything we want to with them, including causing discomfort, real, potential, or perceived, among our fellow citizens.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

^Amen. When you make a mother fear for the life of herself and her child you are way, way beyond any sort of responsible or moral behavior.


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

TxBrewer said:


> A weapon on a hip holster is a defensive weapon, walking down the street of a subdivision with an AR is not a defensive position of any rational. Sure you can say you are using it for defense but you are doing it to provoke a response. Well walk down my street and you will get that response. It's a common sense thing that some supporters of the second amendment don't get. They are doing more damage in my opinion than good.


This literally makes absolutely no sense what so ever.


----------



## Blacktip Shark (Mar 7, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> It's always amazing to me how many people just give up on the entire concept of "just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it" when it comes to this issue. I CAN run full speed into the barbed wire fence behind my house. That doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really ought to expect to be cut up if I do something so stupid. I CAN run up behind the bull on the other side of that fence and kick him in the nads.. That doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really ought to expect to have him stomp a mudhole into my face if I do something so stupid. I CAN tell my wife that yes, that dress makes her look fat. Yada yada yada, whatever I deserve, I'll get. I CAN walk down a public street, mall, whatever with an AR on my back, that doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really shouldn't be surprised when the reaction from the public is less than wonderfully warm..
> 
> Sorry, my parents raised me to consider other people's feelings on the matter before I acted: they taught me to not do something that would make some young mother grab her kid and run from me just in case I had evil intent. They taught me not to make an overt, arrogant action just to draw attention to myself, to do anything that would put the police on the spot as to HAVE to make up something to charge me with just to remove me from the scene when I'm making an *** of myself.
> 
> ...


^^^Good post!^^^


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

Excellent post, dwilliams, which the ones defending the man with the rifle in the mall should read carefully.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

dw, condescending frank, others on the same page-

This is simple. He's within his rights. *Would I choose to do it? No. Would you? No. Would most? No.* He did and that is just too bad for the rest, because it is legal. If he had taken the gun to a ready position or drawing down, that split second, his act becomes illegal and can be dealt with, harshly. I wouldn't choose to wear my pants down to my ankles (which makes moms and kids freak, which somehow, became the new criteria...) I wouldn't complain about some gay pride parade, (which makes people squeamish/run/hide.) I wouldn't choose to drive my truck around with the naked lady mud flaps (which some find offensive.) A cop doesn't get to write you a ticket because you were going 44 in a 45 just because some old lady walking down the street got upset. Same deal. The rules musn't change because it is a gun. You can argue time/place for everything, and to an extent, I'd agree. However, assuming the action is legal, there is no need for repercussions. If you want, talk to the offender, explain your position, but any action against the 'offender' is wrong.

Now to the "ugly part" which goes against most thoughts on the board. Time to separate this issue/incident and look at how to fix the future. Look at the big picture.

As gun owners, we've already lost. Our debate has been framed by the gov't and media into a position that assumes we are wrong and that we must fight for our right that was granted upon us 240 years ago. It is largely assumed that anyone with a gun, is crazy (until you get out into the country) The storyline should be that we're exercising our rights, if you don't like it, I'm sorry, look away.

In my opinion, the only way to 'win' for gun rights IS to push the issues. It IS to educate. Heck even the NRA educates and organizes events. That's pretty in your face. The cops enforcing BS laws are wrong. People freaking out because of a gun for no reason other than it is a gun, are wrong. People must be educated on the rights we were given by our Founders. If you as a gun owner aren't willing to defend that position, you're not helping one lick. Arming yourself, but not standing up is a position I cannot fathom.

Maintain the status quo and you will lose (already have lost dozens) of gun rights. Guns will be regulated out of legal existence- maybe not before we die. But unless something changes, that's the end result. It may not last forever, but one never knows. Sure, hang your hat on "It's in the Constitution!" Yep, but get a few "legal experts" and viola- your rights are interpreted differently. I can say from experience in a debate that a legal theory/take on the 2nd amendment is that guns should only be with state militias. I.E. National Guard, the rest should be confiscated and locked up. That's a scary proposition to me. At least the ban on sales in Chicago may be overturned...

Nothing in history has improved from passivity. The blacks didn't get rights by sitting there-Rosa jumped on the bus, MLK had speeches, they organized sit-ins. Women didn't get to vote by being silent. The gays didn't get rights by hiding in the closet- they had their parades and GLAAD. And WW2, millions were killed by being silent...or all kinds of examples in the past. It is not in the nature of Man to do the right thing long-term. Power abuse is in the cards from any overbearing government. I'm not a gov't conspiracy nut, but I can think away from the norms. I can read history. I can apply it to situations now.

Interested to see responses to this one.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*"Within his rights" is total BS*

I suspect he violated more than one law unrelated to gun ownership. His protest (with some agreeing here) that he clearly had it on his back in a non-threat posture is total BS. The DA will have a field day with the supply of witnesses, mothers, teens, fathers, etc who will testify they thought they were in danger. Better wait and see what the DA does with it.

The Beaumont policeman in the video lectured him very well in front of the camera. Good job officer!


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*Boom, I respectfully disagree with you.*



boom! said:


> Here is a general rule of thumb, if a guy has a rifle slung over his back and a soda in one hand and a burger in the other you are probably ok.
> If a guy has a rifle out in front with his bugger hook on the bang button AND is wearing a mask then you might want to take him out.
> Is it really that hard?


No its not that easy. If you study the videos the demeanor of these new psycho killers in schools and malls is relaxed, calm, methodical. They are not running around screaming or dodging from cover to cover. No, they are calmly walking around killing people. Their alarm center in their brains are turned off. I think this is one reason they have been so lethal.

And, now everyone has seen many of those camera tapes of them and observed what they look like as they go around shooting. That guy fit the profile just fine. He's lucky he wasn't shot on the spot.

Look at these Mumbai guys.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Good post dwilliams.
I have to admit that I was wrong. I began to think - what if I was at that mall with my wife and children? I certainly would have been alarmed and immediately would have began to think of a way to protect my family from this person. We don't know what his intentions are. And maybe we've been conditioned to think this way? Not too sure. 

There is a place to do this and I believe that scheduled march is the place. Not the mall, where you involve women & children.


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> *I presume someone who carries (I still won't declare whether I carry or not...not particularly relevant, is it?) would like the potential to defend themselves in case of a threat*. Much like dude with an AR on their back. Some carry little bersa 380s, some carry the Judge, some carry ARs.
> 
> I'm all for it. Gangbanger, country hick, soccer mom...doesn't matter. They all have rights. Once they start acting threatening, we're allowed to neutralize the threat. Simply carrying a gun doesn't make you much more of a threat than the mom with 5 kids...Start acting a fool, then the situation could change.
> 
> Of course, all this is off-topic...but I wanted to answer.


You finally answered my question, Most folks who carry do so because they want to protect themselves from a threat.

WE are not off topic since you said the moron with the AR posed no threat.
Carrying a firearm openly does make you more of an immanent threat than not carrying one. PERIOD

Remember, we used to have the right to own slaves and keep women from voting. So the 2nd will always be attacked those that are not gun enthusiasts and stupid display of your 2nd amendment rights is what will sway public opinion into amending the second amendment. This will have to be voted on by the public, so yes we need to practice responsible gun ownership as we will need all the help we can muster should this ever come to a vote.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

lil mambo said:


> You finally answered my question, Most folks who carry do so because they want to protect themselves from a threat.
> 
> WE are not off topic since you said the moron with the AR posed no threat.
> Carrying a firearm openly does make you more of an immanent threat than not carrying one. PERIOD
> ...


Eh, owning slaves and keeping women from voting weren't in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Maybe my history teacher was wrong, but I don't recall that "owning a slave" was in the Bill of Rights. I don't recall that "keeping the women from the polls was in the Bill of Rights. Ergo, a faulty comparison from you.

I identify you as an equal threat (and especially if I see your print,) just as much as the AR guy, but we blast the AR guy because it is an AR... I'm guessing it takes you significantly less time to pull up your shirt and get to ready than it does the guy with the AR slung over his back.

The laws as I've read them are intending to cause alarm. Someone being alarmed is not a violation of that law. There has to be the direct intent- that doesn't mean your action may cause, it means the purpose is TO cause. We're too knee jerk of a society conditioned by irrationality. A gun does not equal mass murder, no matter how many videos are posted.

Anyway. Doesn't matter really, I see the following as pretty standard conclusions- Most people wouldn't do it. The cops were wrong. People as a whole are dumbed down and don't think critically, they just react. Gun owners will lose, regardless of what a single person does. We could have zero massacres or injuries and people will still want them gone. Until the stage is changed, this is a foregone conclusion.


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> *Eh, owning slaves and keeping women from voting weren't in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Maybe my history teacher was wrong, but I don't recall that "owning a slave" was in the Bill of Rights. I don't recall that "keeping the women from the polls was in the Bill of Rights. Ergo, a faulty comparison from you.
> *
> I identify you as an equal threat (and especially if I see your print,) just as much as the AR guy, but we blast the AR guy because it is an AR... I'm guessing it takes you significantly less time to pull up your shirt and get to ready than it does the guy with the AR slung over his back.
> 
> ...


Get your facts straight if you are going to use them in an argument.
The 2nd amendment is not the bill of rights it is part of the constitution which originally read as follows.
You may want to consider some CE ,specifically U S history. Your first teacher didn't do so well.

*The Constitution and Slavery: 
Provisions in the Original Constitution*
​*Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]* 
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, *three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves]. 
**Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
*The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. *
Article IV, **Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]*
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
*Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]*
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article

Secondly I never blasted him because it was an AR, guns don't kill remember. It's idiots who use them irresponsibly that do. They will also eventually cause us to lose the protections that we have as responsible gun owners. I would imagine there is a reason that CHL holders are not allowed their weapons to be seen in public when wearing them. Is that not a violation of your constitutional right. I would be willing to bet that you are a CHL holder. If not I apologize, but if so you must be part of the problem since you are bowing to the government in their quest to outlaw weapons.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> Bold statement, but I'd argue it. A right is a right. Period. End of story.
> 
> Gun owners have allowed the national belief/stage to be warped to make them look like they are the minority and that they are evil. It has been warped to in such a way that gun owners are twisted into a position where they are forced to defend their right.
> 
> ...


Sorry Salty, but the world does not work in black and white and the gun laws of this country do not either. As a responsible gun owner and support of the second amendment I realize that there is a public persona and reputation as a gun owner and when someone walks around a public building with an AR strapped to their back they are doing it because they want to flaunt their rights or get a reaction.

Every one of these idiots always have their handicam or other video camera ready to record the interaction with the authorities, Why do you think that is? It's because it was what they wanted to happen because they knew it was going to happen.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> It's always amazing to me how many people just give up on the entire concept of "just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it" when it comes to this issue. I CAN run full speed into the barbed wire fence behind my house. That doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really ought to expect to be cut up if I do something so stupid. I CAN run up behind the bull on the other side of that fence and kick him in the nads.. That doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really ought to expect to have him stomp a mudhole into my face if I do something so stupid. I CAN tell my wife that yes, that dress makes her look fat. Yada yada yada, whatever I deserve, I'll get. I CAN walk down a public street, mall, whatever with an AR on my back, that doesn't mean I SHOULD do it, and I really shouldn't be surprised when the reaction from the public is less than wonderfully warm..
> 
> Sorry, my parents raised me to consider other people's feelings on the matter before I acted: they taught me to not do something that would make some young mother grab her kid and run from me just in case I had evil intent. They taught me not to make an overt, arrogant action just to draw attention to myself, to do anything that would put the police on the spot as to HAVE to make up something to charge me with just to remove me from the scene when I'm making an *** of myself.
> 
> ...


Thank you for saying this so much better than I was trying to.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

lil mambo said:


> Get your facts straight if you are going to use them in an argument.


You may notice that the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the ___________. (Hint: Constitution. )Not sure what your trying to imply with your snarky statement..

However- We can talk the 3/5 thing all day (which was not forgotten) It doesn't give the right, rather a means to count. Not exactly the same.

The same with there is no right to own. It was simply saying we can't ban ownership. Different things.

I didn't say YOU blasted the AR guy. I'm talking society in general. Society has issues with guns based on irrationality. As you and I both know, the crazy people are the issue. Be it the ones shooting, or the ones who are ignorant calling for an outright ban.

As far as a CHL is concerned, I could easily argue that it is a violation. Why we have to get a permit to carry a gun is silly. Just as silly as needing a permit to talk (which, has many times been argued.) I mean, let's be honest- CHL people aren't the ones going out an playing shoot-em-up (you can probably find exceptions.) CHL are the ones who generally intend to be responsible, with or without a permit.

Either way. Gun ownership is doomed in a few generations unless things change.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

TxBrewer said:


> Sorry Salty, but the world does not work in black and white and the gun laws of this country do not either. As a responsible gun owner and support of the second amendment I realize that there is a public persona and reputation as a gun owner and when someone walks around a public building with an AR strapped to their back they are doing it because they want to flaunt their rights or get a reaction.
> 
> Every one of these idiots always have their handicam or other video camera ready to record the interaction with the authorities, Why do you think that is? It's because it was what they wanted to happen because they knew it was going to happen.


Hey TX- I'm not arguing that there isn't a time or place that is more appropriate. As I've stated multiple times, I probably wouldn't do it. I have better things to do (though, that's debatable since I am on 2cool right now, ha!) with my time. There was no crime committed, whether we like it or not.

What is the problem is that there IS a reaction to those people. Gun owners are in a bad position, no matter what happens. I don't agree with the assumption that all publicity about guns is bad. I do submit that the media and goofball cops make things much worse. I also don't run under the assumption that all gun owners are out to kill people at a Lubys, as does the media and most people.

I'm saying there is no way to win as a gun owner. You get out there, you get screwed. You stay silent, you get screwed. Until the stage is changed, no matter what happens, gun owners are screwed.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> Hey TX- I'm not arguing that there isn't a time or place that is more appropriate. As I've stated multiple times, I probably wouldn't do it. I have better things to do (though, that's debatable since I am on 2cool right now, ha!) with my time. There was no crime committed, whether we like it or not.
> 
> What is the problem is that there IS a reaction to those people. Gun owners are in a bad position, no matter what happens. I don't agree with the assumption that all publicity about guns is bad. I do submit that the media and goofball cops make things much worse. I also don't run under the assumption that all gun owners are out to kill people at a Lubys, as does the media and most people.
> 
> I'm saying there is no way to win as a gun owner. You get out there, you get screwed. You stay silent, you get screwed. Until the stage is changed, no matter what happens, gun owners are screwed.


You are not going to educate people by doing your best to provoke them. And you sure as hell are not going to do it with an AR strapped to your back.

You are going to agitate them and push them in the wrong direction.


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

TxBrewer, you are exactly right. It does not matter that he had an AR instead of any other long arm, he was in the wrong place. His choice of an AR was the worst possible thing he could have been carrying though.

Salty, had your wife and children been in that mall, you would not be so outspoken about the incident. No one present had any idea of what his intentions were, so they were right to be alarmed.

People of his ilk and those who chose to defend his actions are harming the private ownership of firearms. Stir the public enough and you can expect to see a ballot regarding the repeal of 2A which could be devastating. You and your allies will force the issue to the detriment of the rest of us.

In an attempt to be nice, just let me say that I do not respect your position. Endangering my right to own firearms is not looked upon kindly.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

I might have a reason to go to Parkdale Mall with the wife now.

But I think I'll leave the AR in the safe...


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

frankcr said:


> TxBrewer, you are exactly right. It does not matter that he had an AR instead of any other long arm, he was in the wrong place. His choice of an AR was the worst possible thing he could have been carrying though.
> 
> Salty, had your wife and children been in that mall, you would not be so outspoken about the incident. No one present had any idea of what his intentions were, so they were right to be alarmed.
> 
> ...


Frank. I don't care if you respect it or not, to be quite honest.

If you think sitting on your laurels is protecting the 2nd amendment, you're out of your mind. If you think that the 2nd Amendment won't go the way of the dodo even if we don't have guys like him, you're mistaken.

I never have said what he did was right or wrong. However, as gun owners, we are absolute fools to say he had no right and not defend the guy, even if we would never take the same action. Don't assume anything about me/my wife/family- you don't know. If you're so torn on how an action offends people, why aren't you upset any other topic d'jour?

It isn't about defending the guy, it is about defending rights. The proper action would be to a) talk to the guy who brought the gun just to make sure he isn't going to flip and b) talk to the people and use it as a point of conversation saying "Hey, what he did isn't popular and it doesn't reflect the population as a whole. It is legal choice, even though we may not all agree. It is a form of protection much as the cop carries his gun. As you can see, he is intending zero harm on the mall denizens. His name is Bob and he can be your friend."

So let's flip this coin. To those who think silence and placation is the answer. How do we keep gun rights safe and increase them to what most of us believe is the intent of the 2nd amendment? What actions should be taken against this guy and other like him, and why? What actions should be taken against (or just taken to address the situation) the public or cops in situations like this? What should be done? What is being done now to protect guns is laughable.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

You are saying gun owners should defend a gun owner no matter how dispicable that gun owners behavoir was, in order to preserve overall gun owners rights. Thats BS. If an overwhelming majority thinks that it is dispicable behavoir, it makes anyone that would condone the behavior look like a nut. If all gun owners said oh no that isnt dispicable behavior, it makes all gun owners look like a nut. You think if you spin it hard enough you can convince enough mall shopping mothers that Bob with the AR isnt nuts? That it was reasonable behavior and Bob wants to be their friend? I just don't see that happening. What I do see is laws being passed to keep nutty Bob out of the mall. How come you don't understand that?


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

poppadawg said:


> You are saying gun owners should defend a gun owner no matter how dispicable that gun owners behavoir was, in order to preserve overall gun owners rights. Thats BS. If an overwhelming majority thinks that it is dispicable behavoir, it makes anyone that would condone the behavior look like a nut. If all gun owners said oh no that isnt dispicable behavior, it makes all gun owners look like a nut. You think if you spin it hard enough you can convince enough mall shopping mothers that Bob with the AR isnt nuts? That it was reasonable behavior and Bob wants to be their friend? I just don't see that happening. What I do see is laws being passed to keep nutty Bob out of the mall. How come you don't understand that?


exactly, it's like the union backers that no matter what the member of the union does they will defend him and help fight for him. No if a member of gun ownership does something legal but stupid I am going to call him/her out for that.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> So let's flip this coin. To those who think silence and placation is the answer. How do we keep gun rights safe and increase them to what most of us believe is the intent of the 2nd amendment? What actions should be taken against this guy and other like him, and why? What actions should be taken against (or just taken to address the situation) the public or cops in situations like this? What should be done? What is being done now to protect guns is laughable.


You are the only person saying silence and placation, others are saying don't be a dumb *** and intentionally tick people off.

But to answer your question we should educate people with actual facts instead of the stuff this guy did.

Educate people on the number of time gun owners defend themselves and their loved ones annually.
Educate them on what the "gun show loophole" really is and that it isn't a gun show loophole it is a private transfer allowance.
Educate them on the real dangers out there, not high capacity magazines and scary black guns but criminals with guns they bought illegally not through legal dealers.

We can do 10x more good with direct communication and honest discussion than you will with scaring a mall full of soccer moms carrying a rifle on your back.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

poppadawg said:


> You are saying gun owners should defend a gun owner no matter how dispicable that gun owners behavoir was, in order to preserve overall gun owners rights. Thats BS. If an overwhelming majority thinks that it is dispicable behavoir, it makes anyone that would condone the behavior look like a nut. If all gun owners said oh no that isnt dispicable behavior, it makes all gun owners look like a nut. You think if you spin it hard enough you can convince enough mall shopping mothers that Bob with the AR isnt nuts? That it was reasonable behavior and Bob wants to be their friend? I just don't see that happening. What I do see is laws being passed to keep nutty Bob out of the mall. How come you don't understand that?


Your assumption is faulty. And you're assuming too much, without reading/thinking critically. Step back, take a breath and reread.

What I have said is that what he did wasn't something most would do. It is, however, legal. This is not up for debate. If it wasn't legal, the cops would not have charged him with the BS charge, they would have booked him on a gun violation.

What I have also said is that the reaction of society is something that must be addressed to win any kind of progress on gun legislation. Society/our knee-jerk reaction to assume that guns are bad, is wrong. Our reaction to assume that guns mean mass murderer/Luby's/workplace shooting, is wrong. Until that stops, gun rights will slowly be eroded, with every tiny possible conflict.

Followed by my argument that in order to win the gun battle (which, shouldn't be a battle) we must change the argument and reaction of society when they see a gun.

When someone goes on a shoot-em-up, it doesn't make all gun owners look bad. The media and gov't spin it to make it like the GUNS are bad. The smarter know this isn't true- it is not the tool.

Let's also look at it this way- Let's assume that there is a law that prevents a guy from walking into a mall with a long gun. He walks in, gets arrested. How is that different than what happened to him? Currently, what he did was legal, but it was made 'illegal' by circumventing the law and claiming some other BS. The end result is exactly the same. One gun owner looks like a nut, not the whole lot. How are we further ahead with either scenario? Both mean guns are disallowed. Both mean further restrictions.

A 2nd question- Would you be ok with the same guy, walking the same route with a concealed gun? If so, why? What difference? He can do the same damage. Just because someone doesn't have a warning that he could freak out and go on a shoot spree makes it okay?

Your position is out of sight out of mind, we can trust guns to stay out of the news. My position is counter to that. My position is that guns go away, regardless of news. At what speed that end happens is irrelevant.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)




----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

TxBrewer said:


> exactly, it's like the union backers that no matter what the member of the union does they will defend him and help fight for him. No if a member of gun ownership does something legal but stupid I am going to call him/her out for that.


NOTHING LIKE THAT. Sheesh. You can call him stupid all you want. That doesn't mean it is illegal. You can kick him in the balls and express your opinion to him. That's your free speech right (well, sans the ball kick.)

If you want carrying a gun in a mall to be illegal, then say so. Fess up. Post up a sign.

If you want to be able to carry a long gun open while in Texas, then defend. You can't have it both ways.

Are lawmakers supposed to write a law for every long gun eventuality? Do you trust them to do it? I bet they would OR, do you trust that most people won't cause problems because they are by nature "good"


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> NOTHING LIKE THAT. Sheesh. You can call him stupid all you want. That doesn't mean it is illegal. You can kick him in the balls and express your opinion to him. That's your free speech right (well, sans the ball kick.)
> 
> If you want carrying a gun in a mall to be illegal, then say so. Fess up. Post up a sign.
> 
> ...


 I never said it should be illegal, I never said there it should be. I SAID IT WAS STUPID AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE and keep saying I am wrong.

Fine we disagree have a nice day go pay his bail money if he keeps this **** up he is going to need a lot of it because the police will keep finding reasons to arrest someone who does stupid things like this. Should they, no, but like I said laws don't work in a vacuum.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Looks to me like the kid is like a dawg with a damm bone. Not satisfied with his "fifteen minutes of fame".. Organizing an 'open carry march' in Beaumont in a few days... He has done more to help gun control forces than anybody I ever heard of.....and his 'march' will be the iceing on the cake for the anti-2A crowd....:headknock

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/n...-planned-following-rifle-incident-5117724.php


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

SaltyTX said:


> What I have also said is that the reaction of society is something that must be addressed to win any kind of progress on gun legislation. Society/our knee-jerk reaction to assume that guns are bad, is wrong. Our reaction to assume that guns mean mass murderer/Luby's/workplace shooting, is wrong. Until that stops, gun rights will slowly be eroded, with every tiny possible conflict.
> 
> Let's also look at it this way- Let's assume that there is a law that prevents a guy from walking into a mall with a long gun. He walks in, gets arrested. How is that different than what happened to him? Currently, what he did was legal, but it was made 'illegal' by circumventing the law and claiming some other BS. The end result is exactly the same. One gun owner looks like a nut, not the whole lot. How are we further ahead with either scenario? Both mean guns are disallowed. Both mean further restrictions.
> 
> ...


People don't assume guns are bad at a gun range, They fear them at a mall. I think you are misguided in thinking that the average Joe or Jane can be convinced that an AR slung over some guys back at the mall is not something to be feared. Recent body counts from mass shootings suggest otherwise. 
For gun owners to argue that it is perfectly reasonable for this whack job to carry an AR around the mall would project that gun owners are whack jobs.
The difference in concealed carry vs slung over the back is obvious. The concealed holder is not scaring the hell out of women and children.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

One more note.. This kid has a store in the Parkdale Mall where all of this krap took place.. He should have read the "Mall Policy" I am sure was in his lease when he signed it....

_*"20.Carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties."*_


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

SaltyTX said:


> Are lawmakers supposed to write a law for every long gun eventuality?


Absolutely not. There are ambiguously named laws such as "disorderly conduct" that are already in place for jackwads like the guy you are defending... unfortunately there isn't a law against being an attentionwhore or he would have been charged with that as well.

I agree with just about everyone else here in that the open carry advocates are making us all look like whackos


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

What we see here is one guy of the type who will eventually aid the antis in having 2A come up for a vote. Yeah boy, just get in the publics face, make them fear, and stand on a law which says you can own a firearm. They cannot change that law, right?

Then when a vote is held, we lose that right due to people getting in the face of the public. You will cry foul and never admit that your decisions helped the movement of the antis. Pardon the rest of us for seeing that you were actually the enemy based on your stance. You helped start a needless fight which we could very well lose.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

frankcr said:


> What we see here is one guy of the type who will eventually aid the antis in having 2A come up for a vote. Yeah boy, just get in the publics face, make them fear, and stand on a law which says you can own a firearm. They cannot change that law, right?
> 
> Then when a vote is held, we lose that right due to people getting in the face of the public. You will cry foul and never admit that your decisions helped the movement of the antis. Pardon the rest of us for seeing that you were actually the enemy based on your stance. You helped start a needless fight which we could very well lose.


Frank, you can't possibly believe that. Can you not see the writing on the wall already? It is shameful that you are so arrogant as to believe you know it all. I can promise, regardless of your age, you do not.

What shocks me is that you truly believe that being passive is the way to greater good. It is a falsehood.

I'm hardly an enemy. I'm hardly against the 2nd amendment. I do believe that people have a right to express, whether you agree or not.

What you and others fail to even acknowledge is that gun owners _are already screwed_. Unless gun owners change the national stage, we still lose and lose more, more quickly.

Did this guy act smartly? Clearly it is debatable. Most of us agree, probably not. Did he But there is a rally, it is being talked about. For better or worse? You cannot know. You can assume and crucify the guy, or you can use it as a launching point to engage in meaningful conversation. It is apparent that some choose silence and complaining instead of addressing the real problem. The anti-gun fear instilled by the media and government...and those that are foolish enough to believe that those in power have better answers.

For a bunch of freedom lovers, when a guy is acting in accordance of the law, I'm definitely surprised at some of the responses. Like it or not, the law is the law. It was followed. It doesn't paint gun owners in a bad light. It paints one guy. To extrapolate to the extreme is misguided- Our 2nd amendment has been in jeopardy long before this guy came along and he'll do nothing to accelerate the demise of our rights.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

jc said:


> Absolutely not. There are ambiguously named laws such as "disorderly conduct" that are already in place for jackwads like the guy you are defending... unfortunately there isn't a law against being an attentionwhore or he would have been charged with that as well.
> 
> I agree with just about everyone else here in that the open carry advocates are making us all look like whackos


Don't cherry pick...you and I both know disorderly is a BS charge that the cops used. That's not disorderly. Walking calmly is not disorderly. People freaking out, that may be disorderly.

Ah well. I'm about done with the thread, I think. It has been fun though. Too bad most can't/won't take the time to answer the questions posed. Some will, but don't like the answer they come up with, so wouldn't admit it publicly.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

(Quote) Did this guy act smartly? Clearly it is debatable. Most of us agree, probably not. Did he But there is a rally, it is being talked about. For better or worse? You cannot know. You can assume and crucify the guy, or you can use it as a launching point to engage in meaningful conversation. It is apparent that some choose silence and complaining instead of addressing the real problem. The anti-gun fear instilled by the media and government...and those that are foolish enough to believe that those in power have better answers.
.[/QUOTE]

Its not passive if you have a losing hand. Its intelligent strategy. 
You have engaged in meaningful conversation for 17 pages on this thread with pro gun advocates. Are you under the delusion that your points would be more convincing to the general public?


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

Tortuga said:


> One more note.. This kid has a store in the Parkdale Mall where all of this krap took place.. He should have read the "Mall Policy" I am sure was in his lease when he signed it....
> 
> _*"20.Carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties."*_


That means nothing.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

stdreb27 said:


> That means nothing.


 It doesn't take the place of a 30.06 sign, if that's what you're getting at, but that doesn't apply anyway since it wasn't a concealed handgun carried by a CHL holder: it most definitely means SOMETHING, even if it's simply breach of contract by a leaseholder.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

stdreb27 said:


> That means nothing.


If it's in his lease it does.


----------



## TxBrewer (Jul 23, 2011)

SaltyTX said:


> What shocks me is that you truly believe that being passive is the way to greater good. It is a falsehood.
> 
> I'm hardly an enemy. I'm hardly against the 2nd amendment. I do believe that people have a right to express, whether you agree or not.
> 
> What you and others fail to even acknowledge is that gun owners _are already screwed_. Unless gun owners change the national stage, we still lose and lose more, more quickly.


Why do you keep accusing people who don't support this guy as being passive? I don't see anyone saying we shouldn't do anything but there are plenty of us saying this guy is doing more harm than good.

I don't get you second point, how are we as gun owners already screwed? Every time someone tries to put a new restrictive gun law on the books on a national level (eliminating state laws since you limited the point to the national stage) it gets beaten down. What is it that is screwing gun owners? And since you think we are screwed what are we screwed to the tune of? What is gong to happen if we don't change the national stage, what will we lose and lose more and what have we lost?


----------



## vdrivenman (Aug 20, 2010)

*PDM*

well if i am reading some other sites correctly.

PDM has now posted the no conceal carry signs on the doors to the entrance of the mall.

Mr. Poe sure showed them didnt he !


----------

