Open carrier at batman movie

[Lotus222]

I kind of see it like this I ride a Motorcycle and person some of us know was killed on his bike. we chose not to ride to the funnel. While it would not have been wrong to do so and he may have wanted it. The last thing his family wanted to look at that day was motorcycles.
Some time something can be 100% within you rights may even be a good idea to many and still be the wrong thing to do at that time.
We did a ride to say good by a few days latter.
I will Both CC and OC my weapons , I will not allow Harassment from LEO to stop me , I will however apply some level on judgement to things like this.
Respect has many lanes not just my point of view.
If you have ever read any of my post on the subject of OC you would know this is a diversion from what many would expect from me.

I see your point, and understand where you are coming from. However, this isn't the same as a funeral with the parents and immediate families of the deceased. It is just a public place full of a bunch of random strangers. Did you ride your bike in public after you were done with the memorial? How long did you wait? A week? A month? A year? My point is, we don't see the public backlash from commodities like automobiles - commodities that don't have protection by the constitution.

That's true. More guns = less crime. Would you care for a citation on that or shale I just post a smiley?

Ah, yes. My favorite article to post has made it to another thread.
Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw - Atlanta gun rights | Examiner.com

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[indykid]

I'm sorry, but that was idiotic for that guy to OC! I CC'd to the Batman movie just like I CC everywhere that's legal. I don't know why anyone OC's unless its' the only way they can legally carry where they live. It's certainly better to have a gun than no gun but if you can concealed carry then DO IT. You make yourself a target for the wolves (not referring to police) if you OC plus you scare the "sheeple" which is NOT the point. Responsible citizens who carry should fly under the radar and not make their presence known until they are needed (which is hopefully never). It seems especially idiotic to OC at a movie theatre days after a mass shooting AT A MOVIE THEATRE. Anyone with a brain is going to be hyper sensitive and aware of people carrying. Spend $50 and get a comfortable IWB holster and save yourself the trouble of having people look at you like a psycho and having police ask or your carry permit. Hats off to the guys who CC'd whether or not they knew it was legal. It's unfortunate it was ruined for them by the guy who OC'd.

[tacman605]

I understand why the incident in Kennesaw is used as an article to champion OC'ing but I will repeat what I have said before quoting from the article....

He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse.

If several men armed with rifles are deterred by two guys eating pancakes with a holstered weapon they need to find another profession. These guys did not have the heart to do much of anything to anybody.

[CIBMike]

I would have said nothing walked to my truck drove away and left them sitting there with the lights on staring at each other.

[ccw9mm]

I would have said nothing walked to my truck drove away and left them sitting there with the lights on staring at each other.

That's an assumption how it would have turned out, but it's certainly one of the possibilities.

Reality is, though, that saying one isn't interested in a fight isn't much different than walking on and hoping the person will be left with that same impression (the lack of interest in a fight). If experience is any teacher, it's that a situation in which someone's so tightly strung as this guy ended up being, it can be fairly impossible to predict how quickly a situation can blow sideways.

[ArmyMan]

There's an interesting conundrum, for those living in a state that requires notification upon demand, if concealing and failing to notify in such a case.

Agreed, on the flying under the radar, though. One of the benefits of going concealed, in a place that doesn't openly support lawful carry of defensive weapons.

The problem I have with these signs having the force of law, is that if you carry concealed anyway, and there is an incident where you need to use lethal force, and you would have otherwise been justified...you can still be slapped with a homicide charge since, legally, you didn't have a right to carry in that location. You can go to prison for defending yourself.

That's just wrong.

Respect for other's private property be damned. The instant you post a 'no-firearms' sign, *you* are the disrespectful snot-nosed little brat. Respecting your 'rights' isn't the reason to avoid your business. A patron can go to prison for otherwise lawfully defending themselves. That's the reason to avoid the business.

[ccw9mm]

The problem I have with these signs having the force of law, is that if you carry concealed anyway, and there is an incident where you need to use lethal force, and you would have otherwise been justified...you can still be slapped with a homicide charge since, legally, you didn't have a right to carry in that location. You can go to prison for defending yourself.

That's just wrong.

Absolutely. Though, I'd be willing to bet the likelihood would be a charge of criminal trespass only (at worst), since (presumably) the self-defense was justified.

Committing a statutory "wrong" during the commission of an absolute "right," and being strung by the toes for seeking to save innocent life. The logic of such deliberately-placed legal bear traps will forever escape me.

[ArmyMan]

I
Ah, yes. My favorite article to post has made it to another thread.
Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw - Atlanta gun rights | Examiner.com

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>

Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.

Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

[The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009



In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England's Homicide Rate

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax.
In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.

GunCite-Gun Accidents

Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.

The study found that England and Wales ranked highly in a survey of crime rates among more than 30 developed counries, based on the frequency of crimes recorded by police for every 100,000 people.

• For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA. England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries – worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh.
• For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth – worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic.

Nearly half of all offenders sent to prison are reconvicted within a year of release, creating a revolving door of crime.

..........

[Lotus222]

Snip
..........

Awesome. You need to start a thread full of this stuff! I was recently looking at evidence that backs the claim that OC makes you a target. I could only find 2 incidents of it ever happening to a civilian (non LEO/Security/Military).

[bzdog]

This is very clear cut IMO.

They had a sign asking patrons not to carry weapons. It doesn't matter if it is legally binding. They have the right to to make (more or less) any rules they want. They could post "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

The point is, if you OC, they can SEE you are breaking their rules the same way if you were not wearing a shirt. As a result they are within their right to ask that person to leave just the same as the shirtless patron.

After the other patrons outed themselves, they are caught in the same situation. The theater now knows, so is within its right to ask them to leave.

At this point there are only two alternatives. Leave or disarm. If they stay and the theater doesn't want them, they are trespassing.

I suspect the cop was just allowing everyone to save face with his sign comment, but unless the OCer really didn't see the sign, he did cause all this.

I don't have anything against OC, but bottom line, if you OC past a sign asking you not to, don't be surprised if you are asked to leave.

The other two were just (temporary) collateral damage. Just in the wrong time, wrong place. They could have left and came to the next show. The cop did what he had to do. Everyone wins by being polite.

What I find encouraging is there were three people carrying.

-john

[romansten9]

There's an interesting conundrum, for those living in a state that requires notification upon demand, if concealing and failing to notify in such a case.

Agreed, on the flying under the radar, though. One of the benefits of going concealed, in a place that doesn't openly support lawful carry of defensive weapons.

Thats why you always want to have an IPOD with you. "Uh, sorry officer, when they shut the movie off, I got bored and started listening to my music. Did you say somethin?"

[ArmyMan]

This is very clear cut IMO.

They had a sign asking patrons not to carry weapons. It doesn't matter if it is legally binding. They have the right to to make (more or less) any rules they want. They could post "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

The point is, if you OC, they can SEE you are breaking their rules the same way if you were not wearing a shirt. As a result they are within their right to ask that person to leave just the same as the shirtless patron.

After the other patrons outed themselves, they are caught in the same situation. The theater now knows, so is within its right to ask them to leave.

At this point there are only two alternatives. Leave or disarm. If they stay and the theater doesn't want them, they are trespassing.

I suspect the cop was just allowing everyone to save face with his sign comment, but unless the OCer really didn't see the sign, he did cause all this.

I don't have anything against OC, but bottom line, if you OC past a sign asking you not to, don't be surprised if you are asked to leave.

The other two were just (temporary) collateral damage. Just in the wrong time, wrong place. They could have left and came to the next show. The cop did what he had to do. Everyone wins by being polite.

What I find encouraging is there were three people carrying.

-john

If you're talking about respect...respect went right out the window the moment the sign was put up. For one private person to try and tell another private persons what they can and can not do with the intimate space immediately around their body is far, far more grievous a violation than carrying onto private land or into a private building.

It's unfortunant these signs have the force of law behind them anywhere in America. They are a gross violation of personal property rights and need to be banned asap.

[tacman605]

If you're talking about respect...respect went right out the window the moment the sign was put up. For one private person to try and tell another private persons what they can and can not do with the intimate space immediately around their body is far, far more grievous a violation than carrying onto private land or into a private building.

LOL Wow. For one person to tell another that his rights matters not just so you can exercise your rights is also throwing respect right out the window. The business has every right to decide what goes on and comes inside their property, your rights do not supercede everyone elses's. You don't want to go in unarmed don't they really, really don't care.

As I said before if you want to avoid places and people that are anti gun and don't want to support the anti gunner movement look at the list I posted. I think you will find though you will have a pretty boring life though.

[Pistology]

The problem I have with these signs having the force of law, is that if you carry concealed anyway, and there is an incident where you need to use lethal force, and you would have otherwise been justified...you can still be slapped with a homicide charge since, legally, you didn't have a right to carry in that location. You can go to prison for defending yourself.

That's just wrong.

Respect for other's private property be damned. The instant you post a 'no-firearms' sign, *you* are the disrespectful snot-nosed little brat. Respecting your 'rights' isn't the reason to avoid your business. A patron can go to prison for otherwise lawfully defending themselves. That's the reason to avoid the business.

It's wrong that a posting may turn a good shoot into bad because self defense is always justification of lethal force. Notwithstanding, under TN Criminal Code, "POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE". And, "Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500)."
So the bold part of your statement is invalid.

[mlr1m]

:SNIP:If several men armed with rifles are deterred by two guys eating pancakes with a holstered weapon they need to find another profession. These guys did not have the heart to do much of anything to anybody.

The fact that they chose to commit robbery instead of working for their money tells me that they are just lazy and looking for easy money. They very easily could have been deterred by the idea that the presence of armed citizens might have required them to put more effort into their 'work'.
It was not the guns that scared them off so much as the extra work those guns might have caused them. Perfectly understandable that they would look for some place easier to ply their trade.

Michael