Man arrested for thinking the Constitution is still in effect

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 88

A man conducting what he says was a "social experiment" has recently been arrested on charges of making a terrorist threat. He told detectives that he wanted to know how seriously our society, including the government, takes the 2nd Amendment, and got his answer when he walked into a Walmart store openly carrying an assault rifle and was immediately arrested and told that he could face up to four years in prison for threatening to commit domestic terrorism. This is despite the fact that the state in which he lives (Missouri) is an open carry state, and despite the fact that Walmart has no official policy on whether customers may openly carry in their stores (and which in fact sells guns), and despite the fact that he never pointed his gun at anyone or made any remarks implying a desire to carry out violence. He broke no laws, apart from the "terroristic threat" he made by exercising his Constitutional right to bear arms.

On the same day this incident occurred, a self-described anti-gun rights activist was questioned by detectives for performing a similar stunt, in which he asked a Walmart salesperson for something "that would kill 200 people." Apparently, police were more sympathetic to the motive behind his stunt, because he was let go without charges.

It should be clear that any laws the first man might have broken by exercising his 2nd Amendment rights can have no legal legitimacy in light of the 2nd Amendment's unambiguous proscription against governmental actions that infringe a citizen's "right to keep and bear arms." Note that the 2nd Amendment does NOT say that a citizen's right to bear arms are respected so long as he is permitted to own some types of guns and can bear them under specific circumstances. The framers could have phrased the amendment in any manner they wished, and they went with "shall not be infringed" over some weaker phrase such as "shall be respected in some manner." The meaning of this is clear, despite the criminal attempts of our courts to obscure it. The US government is simply not allowed to jail its citizens for walking around with guns of a certain type, or to insist on pushing us down any other slippery slope in this regard.

If it's impossible to exercise one's Constitutional rights without scaring others because such displays are so rare these days, then perhaps society is to blame rather than the man in question. If you're more scared of men like him than you are of a government which feels that it has the right to ignore its own laws, even one so sacred as to earn the second spot on the Bill of Rights, then you may want to brush up on your math skills.

You see, mass shooters do not (and really, cannot) pose a serious security risk to this or any other nation. They will never be responsible for more than a tiny fraction of deaths in any society, and will never affect the destiny of civilization except to the extent that we foolishly allow them to. If you add up all the deaths from all the mass shootings carried out in the US during the last 100 years, it adds up to around one pretty bad plane crash. Not even the worst plane crash, but just a pretty bad one (under 500 deaths). Governments, on the other hand, have been known to kill their citizens by the hundreds of millions. Thus, it would be closer to the truth to say that no American has ever died from a mass shooting than to say that so many have died that it's time to let the government oppress us. Indeed, 500 is a lot closer to 0 than it is to 100,000,000.


Wingnut mantra.
Kill more kiddies, that's my right.
--> @disgusted
I am bigoted right-wing nut job, proudly. 
--> @dylancatlow
And it's your Krishna given right to kill kiddies.
--> @dylancatlow
The 2nd amendment does not give unlimited rights. You can argue you think that the law he broke falls foul of the 2nd amendment, however under your countries current legal framework, he was not protected by the 2nd amendment

I think the 2nd amendment should be modified from it's current state to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless you are significantly bipolar or have committed a felony".  Mass shootings account for a small portion of homicides, but the overall homicide rate decreases when states ban AK 15s and AK 47s considerably.  I think the active ingredient in the ban was taking guns away from bipolar people, who I think do a lot of homicides, although I"m not sure.  I don't want to take guns away from the mentally ill because that would mean I would have to forfeit my guns due to my autism.  But I think the 2nd amendment needs to be edited.

--> @Alec
Most amendments have later supreme court decisions that "refine" the original amendment text. For example, speech that incites violence is not protected by the 1st amendment, despite the 1st amendment not stating this.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, the Heller decision explicitly states that the federal laws that prevent felons and mentally ill from bearing arms are permissible despite the 2nd amendment.
--> @dustryder
Heller decision explicitly states that the federal laws that prevent felons and mentally ill from bearing arms are permissible despite the 2nd amendment.
How did mentally ill people get guns then to do homicide?

--> @Alec
If they were already diagnosed with a mental illness, then it was just a case of background check failure I suppose. That, and there are a handful of cases where you can be exempted from a background check.

If they weren't diagnosed with a mental illness beforehand, then there would be nothing to show on a background check in the first place. And there's really nothing you can do about this except for some sort of mental screening as part of the purchasing process.
--> @dustryder
There are 2 types of mentally ill people; the kind that want to commit homicide and the kind that don't.  I have a mental illness; Asperger syndrome.  I should be allowed to have any gun I want since I don't want to commit homicide.  Adam Lanza and similar people shouldn't have a gun.  The background checks that exist need to prevent future Adam Lanzas from getting a gun but should allow people like me, people that don't want to murder to get a gun.
--> @Alec
Two points

1. I imagine part of the reason for the mental illness restriction is the predisposition for certain types of behaviours. It's not enough to examine what a person thinks they'll do with a gun, but also to examine how likely they are to "fly off the handle" at any given moment for any set of factors. And this is something that I doubt the mentally ill can recognise in themselves until it's already happened and it's too late, if even at all.

2. I'm about 99.99% sure that just having some sort of high functioning autism in and of itself doesn't prevent anyone from owning a gun. I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise but it's simply not true.

--> @dustryder
I'm about 99.99% sure that just having some sort of high functioning autism in and of itself doesn't prevent anyone from owning a gun. I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise but it's simply not true.

My Mom doesn't want me having a gun because of my autism.
Guy killed no one, retard.
--> @dylancatlow
I am bigoted right-wing nut job, proudly. 
So what the intention behind this?
Your biases are confirmed if I grant you this is correct?

If you are on the private property of Walmart don't expect them to accept your attitudes like thinking carrying an assault rifle (do you actually know what the gun is or are we going to class them under Call of Duty weapons classes?) is an okay attitude to have. They are well within their right to ask you to leave the premises and if there is reasonable concern they can call the cops and have you arrested.


The manager at Walmart, your cousin Dave, and the local police are probably not working for the federal government.

States can regulate the manner in which firearms are carried.  In an outdoor environment, openly carrying arms is often more appropriate and doesn't require any licensing.  It has a longstanding precedent as a practical manner when people are traveling, and trekking into the wilderness.  Historically, it is sawed off long guns and pocket pistols which are problematic and associated with deviants in most places, and not a whole lot has changed.  Concealed carry is more appropriate for people who have to be armed more often in most settings and can't simply have something sitting in their truck or what have you.  If nothing else, its just plain rude to walk into a business opened to the public and pose a disruption to the norm, obviously... A manager of a chain store is probably going have someone call the police, attempt to mitigate disruption to their loyal customers, then politely ask them to leave. 


I haven't read the article, but it seems stupid to be making a public spectacle of yourself with an assault rifle, because they are friggin expensive.

--> @dylancatlow
Seriously, if someone totes an M-16 into a Walmart, forget the statistics. 
You sound like a friggin leftist who happened to read part of their Constitution.  Society isn't oppressing you. 

The Walmart display cases tend to have a couple nice ones like maybe a Henry lever action, and a great American pump shotgun, an accurate but utilitarian bolt action in 22 and hunting caliber, maybe a Savage.  Then the rest are something like a Remington-Marlin lever, a few more bolt actions with synthetic stocks, a cheap foreign double barrel, and a couple super affordable break actions, next to the BB guns and mispriced ammo.  They usually put knives under the counter.  Its just a little cubby for implements at the counter of the outdoor section.  
--> @dylancatlow
the retired firefighter who pulled a gun on him should be charged.  while what the gun did going into wal-mart like he did was dumb it doesn't appear he actually broke any laws, moreover he didn't have any of the guns in his hand or acting in anyway that the retired gun could have felt immediately threatened, I mean the gun was pushing a shopping cart, shopping, the retired gun wanted to be a hero imo and should have to pay the consequences for breaking the laws as he did.  if he had a concealed licence, not sure if he needed one, but if you are going to carry it's your responsibility to know wtf you are doing and what you can't do.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts, @Alec
My Mom doesn't want me having a gun because of my autism.
Your mom wants the best for you, and that's certainly a consideration to take when deciding to buy a gun. However ultimately it's your life, so it's your decision whether to get a gun and not hers.

the retired firefighter who pulled a gun on him should be charged.  while what the gun did going into wal-mart like he did was dumb it doesn't appear he actually broke any laws, moreover he didn't have any of the guns in his hand or acting in anyway that the retired gun could have felt immediately threatened, I mean the gun was pushing a shopping cart, shopping, the retired gun wanted to be a hero imo and should have to pay the consequences for breaking the laws as he did.  if he had a concealed licence, not sure if he needed one, but if you are going to carry it's your responsibility to know wtf you are doing and what you can't do.
I believe the relevant law is

Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.[1]
He was not carrying the firearm in a concealed manner
His display to "the ordinary sight of another person" was not brief
His display of the firearm was not in necessary self defense
And to reasonable interpretation, the firearm was intentionally displayed in a threatening manner
--> @dustryder
I was under the impression that Missouri was an open carry state. In an open carry state, this is what you're allowed to do: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2016-07-17/Getty/576771626.jpg&w=1484
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay so I read an article.  He was wearing two guns, body armor (which he put on in the parking lot), and its implied he had spare mags.  Walmart employees (reasonably) pulled a fire alarm and evacuated the store, and someone on site detained him without further escalation.  He was turned over to police several minutes later.  No injuries reported. 

--> @dylancatlow, @dustryder
he was "open carrying" what you have posted is about concealed carry so that doesn't really apply, that law just applies to concealed carry if you have a concealed carry licence.  
Dylan I thought it's an open carry state as well, I'll have to research that.

as you can see the law is addressing taking a gun that is concealed and how, when etc it can be displayed,  briefly and openly display is to address "printing" or otherwise exposing the firearm unintentionally like your shirt goes up unintended, unexpectedly.
what he was doing is open carrying there's no argument that he wasn't, now whether he was permitted or what restrictions if any are the issues, if it's an open carry state the fireman is getting sued and probably loosing his concealed carry permit and or being prosecuted.
Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.[1]

--> @Snoopy
the alarm is only reasonable if it's not an open carry state or he was actually doing some illegal which isn't clear yet imo  If and a big if he was with in his rights and legally doing what he was doing the fire alarm wasn't needed and the fireman should be charged and will probably be sued.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Employees pulled the fire alarm, and the an ex-firefighter responded to the source of the commotion just outside of the store, according to my source. 

As far as a first responder is concerned he was restoring the peace.  There's no reason to charge him.  Police responded to this mess.


--> @Snoopy
you can't pull a gun on someone who is not a threat, if he was within his constitutional rights to open carry then yes the firefighter was in the wrong and broke the law, he's not a cop but a wanna be.

Missouri became a constitutional carry state in January 2017. No permit is required to openly or conceal carry a firearm but the state still issues permits on a "Shall Issue" basis for reciprocity with other states. There is no requirement to register firearms or obtain a purchase permit and some specially trained school employees are allowed to carry firearms on school grounds. Permits are issued at the local level by county sheriffs to residents only who must be at least 19 years old.


Local governments are allowed to regulate open carry and the discharge of firearms (except in self defense); however, CCW permit holders are exempt from ordinances banning open carry.[5
Missouri allows open carry without a permit, so long as the firearm is not displayed in an angry or threatening manner.[20] Some localities prohibit open carry; however, concealed carry license holders are exempted from this restriction.[21]
Missouri does not prohibit the open carry of any specific weapon, nor do most of the restrictions in RSMo 571.030 apply to the open carry of a firearm or other weapon. It is not a crime under Missouri law to openly carry a weapon into any place where concealed carry is prohibited, except for a church, school bus, school, or onto the grounds of a school function. According to RSMo Section 571.030, there is no age limit to openly carry a handgun, long gun or any deadly weapon.[22]

so the question is what where the local restrictions if any about open carry?

this issue has really gone quiet it seems, probably because they fk'd up or are you reading something I am not?