CCW Permit Holder Pulls Gun At Soccer Game (Merged)

[JustInCase]

you can not legally carry at any sporting event...

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Jet4]

I thought this was a good commentary by the station manager of one Lubbock's news stations:


KCBD, NewsChannel 11 Lubbock |Consider This....Gun Control

Kind of embarrasing that this happened around here

[mcp1810]

I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
To put a little different spin on it, consider the following.
The defendant was in the stands exercising his first ammendment rights and expressing his opinion in a public place. He apparently was critical of the job performance of the soccer coach who had volunteered to subject herself to that level of scrutiny, by volunteering to become a semi public figure as the coach of the team. We now have the husband of the coach, who it seems has a difference of opinion with the defendant. We don't know what words were exchanged between them, but we do know the husband uses physical force to prevent the defendant from further exercising his right of free speech.

At this point the defendant produces his weapon ( again we don't know what words were said, either party may have made threats) and he is physically attacked by the off duty corrections officer. Since we don't know what was said, we don't know what that corrections officer may have heard. We don't know what kind of relationship he may have with either of the parties. He could be jumping on some guy pointing a gun at his drinking buddy without knowing why.

[bison]

I definitely think this guy was in the wrong. People have got careful of their tempers ESPECIALLY when there are guns and children present.

[dmorris68]

The defendant was in the stands exercising his first ammendment rights and expressing his opinion in a public place.
...
We don't know what words were exchanged between them, but we do know the husband uses physical force to prevent the defendant from further exercising his right of free speech.

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic, but I've got speak to this point. I see it far too often and it troubles me, because as pro-gun people trying to protect a Constitutional right, it is imperative that we present ourselves as understanding exactly what those rights mean, otherwise we won't be taken seriously.

While the law is pretty clear that insulting someone does not justify a physical assault by another citizen, the 1A right to free speech is not relevant to this incident whatsoever. 1A, just as with all of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights, was implemented as a control on government, and thus only applies to the government's restriction of speech as it relates to the government being a target of said speech. It does not apply between private citizens, to private business or venues, social interactions, employer/employee relationships, etc. The ONLY time it applies is a situation where the government itself attempts to silence your speech or retaliate against you for it, and in fact was intended to protect citizens from retribution by the government for speaking against said government. No citizen has a protected "right" to insult or threaten another citizen, commit slander/libel, be insubordinate to their boss, incite a riot or other disturbance, yell "fire" in a crowded theater, divulge national or trade secrets, etc. etc. Virtually all of those offenses, plus a list of many more, can result in criminal, civil, or social action and penalties.

As many others said, we don't have all the info here and thus we can't really make a fair judgment of who did what and when, and if they were justified. But rest assured that insulting the coach is not considered protected speech.

I won't even get into the "inalienable right" thing that came up in another post, but suffice it to say that person needs to read up on what an inalienable right actually is.

[aznav]

I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
To put a little different spin on it, consider the following.
The defendant was in the stands exercising his first ammendment rights and expressing his opinion in a public place. He apparently was critical of the job performance of the soccer coach who had volunteered to subject herself to that level of scrutiny, by volunteering to become a semi public figure as the coach of the team. We now have the husband of the coach, who it seems has a difference of opinion with the defendant. We don't know what words were exchanged between them, but we do know the husband uses physical force to prevent the defendant from further exercising his right of free speech.

At this point the defendant produces his weapon ( again we don't know what words were said, either party may have made threats) and he is physically attacked by the off duty corrections officer. Since we don't know what was said, we don't know what that corrections officer may have heard. We don't know what kind of relationship he may have with either of the parties. He could be jumping on some guy pointing a gun at his drinking buddy without knowing why.

You would make a great attorney!! Having been a soccer coach and a soccer parent you get to see both sides. I go for the coach. Every parent's kid (including mine) is a star and deserves to play for most of the game. At least that's what they tell me after every game. Pulling a gun in a crowd of kids because of a shoving offense (which he escalated) is just a brick short of a load. Yank that CCW, give him 30 days and a fine. Stooo-pid.

[FN1910]

Great point there Dmorris68. I really get tired of people proclaiming that 1A means they can come in my house and scream all they want to or go into a store and start yelling and cussing because it is their 1A right. 1A restrictions only apply to the government. If I have a movie theater and I choose not to show your film because I don't like it that is not censorship nor is it denial of your 1A rights. If the Government says I can't show the film then it is a violation but not if I choose not to. You may have the right to cuss the coach at a soccer game but I also have the right to tell you to shut up.

[mcp1810]

dmorris68,
You are right, my mistake, I was under the impression that this was a city recreation department league, not a private corporation. When I was a kid our league was run by the rec department and the coaches and officials were "agents" of the rec department.

But also, please note that the article only says he got into a fight with the coach. It does not say he started it. It is possible she was the aggressor. We have nothing in the article that says otherwise. For all we know she was screaming that his kid was an idiot for shooting when they should have passed the ball. He could have simply reminded her that these were little kids and then she and the husband escalated it. We don't have any evidence to the contrary at this point.

So again, as far as we know the defendants actions were perfectly legal and he was physically assaulted.

[dldeuce]

I won't even get into the "inalienable right" thing that came up in another post, but suffice it to say that person needs to read up on what an inalienable right actually is.

You were right. It was definitely worth the effort to read up on the term inalienable right. What I read throughout our history is inalienable, natural, pre-existing, God given rights, and keep in bear arms is the palladium of those rights. Limited, but not trampled upon like we have in Texas and elsewhere.

Here is an interesting comment from the Heller decision:

St. George Tucker’s version of Blackstone’s Commentaries, as we explained above, conceived of the Blackstonian arms right as necessary for self-defense. He equated that right, absent the religious and class-based restrictions,with the Second Amendment. See 2 Tucker’s Blackstone 143. In Note D, entitled, “View of the Constitution of the United States,” Tucker elaborated on the Second Amendment:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” 1 id., at App. 300 (ellipsis in original). "

Thanks for the interesting read.

[calmp9]

One of the most common threads are when/when not to draw, it's just not covered as well in classes as it should be.

If that permit holder would have been a regular reader here, the situation would not likely have happened. Too bad for him, and for permit holders everywhere.

KCBD, NewsChannel 11 Lubbock |Man Pulls Gun At Game, Now Charged With Assault

Not necessarily.


Police officers go through extensive handgun training, way more that the average CCW permit holder. With all respect to the officers in the forum here, even they are capable of doing such bonehead things. How many times have officers accidently discharged weapons? It's not supposed to happen to them because they're the supposed experts, but it does.

I'll never forget it, "This is a Glock 40. I am the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to carry the Glock 40." In a classroom full of kids, bang! Right in the foot.

[GWRedDragon]

Police officers go through extensive handgun training, way more that the average CCW permit holder.

Maybe not more than the average person on this forum, though! Haha...

[riverkeeper]

My guess is that Tye Burke's co-pilot was John Barleycorn who is known to be a bad influence.

[cwblanco]

I'm not defending the guy, but to clairfy... He got in an argument because of the 7-8 year olds soccer game. He pulled the gun becuase he was pushed by the coachs husband.

I agree totally unacceptable, but there is a big difference.

I see no big difference at all. So what, he was pushed. If he is carrying, he should have left -- period. Although the castle doctrine exists in the home, it does not exist on a kids soccer field. If he wanted to go put his firearm in his car and return for an old-fashioned fist fight, he probably would not lose his CHL permit. Now he is assured of losing the permit -- probably permanently. Obviously he did not value his permit very highly, or he was too stupid to have a permit in the first place.

[svinfinity45]

Agreed this was just plain old horrible judgment. There have been times where I wanted to clear leather just to slow down the situation or deescalate it, but the time, place, and need were not met so I didn't. I think this guy just had an EGO problem.

I think even if he went to his car and put his gun away, and then returned and fought and got arrested for assault, he would still lose his permit. Especially since upon returning to the area he is now the aggressor. Here in CT and I believe in most states your permit will go under review for ANY arrest.

[NavDoc]

An old saying comes to mind: "It does not matter how much good we do, it only takes one knucklehead to screw it up for us."

As stated earlier, I hope this idiot did not mess it up for us law abiding CCW holders.