Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge - Page 3

Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge

This is a discussion on Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by JD The argument against the "casual" open carrying of long guns is almost universally upheld in the firearms community. Even the almighty ...

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 122
Like Tree203Likes

Thread: Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Pete63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas
    Posts
    3,405
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    The argument against the "casual" open carrying of long guns is almost universally upheld in the firearms community.

    Even the almighty OpenCarry.org evangelicals are against the practice.

    That's kind of a clue

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Agreed. IF...ÖÖÖ.. he had planed in advance, AND had legal council at the READY, AND a budget to fight, till the cows come home, he'd not be coping a plea, and moving on.
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    Live Well, Laugh Often, Defend Yourself
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
    This land abounds in ruffians and varmints. Their numbers are legion, their evil skills commensurate.

  2. #32
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Look, everyone is admitting him carrying the way he did was not smart. We got that. I'm not sure why anyone is still arguing that. The question was, was it illegal. It clearly was not under MO law.

    Unless people are trying to argue that "the right of the people RTKABA shall not be infringed, unless a lot of people spontaneously think it's stupid." COTUS doesn't say that.
    I think the point here is that he was not charged with any crime for the carrying of the firearm. The charges are not suggesting that his carry was illegal. You can be uncomfortable with what it was he was charged with, but there isn't any argument about unfairly being charged with a carry related crime, because he wasn't.

    He was charged with, and plead guilty to, knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department. He his guilty of a misdemeanor that he plead guilty to. The basis for the charge is directly related to the facts associated with his planning an executing his self proclaimed "social experiment". The charge is related to the outcome of his social scientist work, not for open carry. People can have whatever feelings they want it, but the charge is not suggesting that his carry was illegal. It wasn't.

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Yes it is a "clue" that even many within the gun community are against the lawful exercising of the right to bear arms just because they think only the "arms" that don't scare of offend are "reasonable" and "acceptable".

    There isn't anything in the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed except for the arms that some folks think other people don't need to carry."
    Also doesn't say ".....shall not be infringed, except when open carried on commercial airplanes". And it doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, except when drunk in public". It is a false premise to make a declarative statement about what 2A means and doesn't mean and to go on to suggest that for any 2A supporter that does not see it this way, they are not a true 2A/gun rights supporter. No one has that level of certainty about what "true" 2A related support looks like, in every possible scenario.

    He is still free to carry. I support his rights to do so. Keep the BS social experiment shenanigans out of it, if you want support from this ardent 2A/gun rights advocate.
    JD and wmhawth like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,828
    Quote Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter View Post
    I think the point here is that he was not charged with any crime for the carrying of the firearm. The charges are not suggesting that his carry was illegal. You can be uncomfortable with what it was he was charged with, but there isn't any argument about unfairly being charged with a carry related crime, because he wasn't.

    He was charged with, and plead guilty to, knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department. He his guilty of a misdemeanor that he plead guilty to. The basis for the charge is directly related to the facts associated with his planning an executing his self proclaimed "social experiment". The charge is related to the outcome of his social scientist work, not for open carry. People can have whatever feelings they want it, but the charge is not suggesting that his carry was illegal. It wasn't.
    Yep. His actions were the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While doing so (for either) is not illegal in itself, one is not protected by the 1st or 2nd amendments, and one can still be held accountable for the results of one's actions.
    mmb617, Nmuskier and craze like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Yep. His actions were the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While doing so (for either) is not illegal in itself, one is not protected by the 1st or 2nd amendments, and one can still be held accountable for the results of one's actions.
    Except there has been no law or ruling saying it is not protected by 1A.
    Hoganbeg and johndp1911 like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  7. #36
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    20,670
    So here's the actual relevant code.

    Dude probably made the right call taking the plea deal.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Except there has been no law or ruling saying it is not protected by 1A.
    There is (was) case law. Some erroneous claim it is "illegal" to shout fire in a crowded place, but it is not. One is still "legally" responsible for any harm or injury caused by any ensuing chaos caused by that action though, at least in a civil suit.

    The old "Can't yell fire" case was later ruled by SCOTUS that one is not protected if one's speech leads to criminal acts, but anyone could file a civil suit for harm or injury, and in all likelihood would win.
    OD* likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    There is (was) case law. Some erroneous claim it is "illegal" to shout fire in a crowded place, but it is not. One is still "legally" responsible for any harm or injury caused by any ensuing chaos caused by that action though, at least in a civil suit.

    The old "Can't yell fire" case was later ruled by SCOTUS that one is not protected if one's speech leads to criminal acts, but anyone could file a civil suit for harm or injury, and in all likelihood would win.
    The ruling was never on whether or not someone could say it, or anything like that.
    We get the government we deserve.

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array entertainment72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    After this picture was taken, open carry became legal. Your post is a fail.
    You think those two "advocates" convinced the Texas legislature?

    Your reasoning and understanding of causality are a fail.

  11. #40
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Yes it is a "clue" that even many within the gun community are against the lawful exercising of the right to bear arms just because they think only the "arms" that don't scare of offend are "reasonable" and "acceptable".

    There isn't anything in the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed except for the arms that some folks think other people don't need to carry."
    Also doesn't say ".....shall not be infringed, except when open carried on commercial airplanes". And it doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, except when drunk in public". It is a false premise to make a declarative statement about what 2A means and doesn't mean and to go on to suggest that for any 2A supporter that does not see it this way, they are not a true 2A/gun rights supporter. No one has that level of certainty about what "true" 2A related support looks like, in every possible scenario.

    He is still free to carry. I support his rights to do so. Keep the BS social experiment shenanigans out of it, if you want support from this ardent 2A/gun rights advocate.
    Airplanes are private property and the property owner has the right to set whatever gun rules he wishes. So why is it necessary to also add gun control laws? Because someone with an anti gun agenda didn't let a crisis go to waste perhaps?

    There are already laws in place for being drunk in public why is it necessary to add "while carrying a gun"? Because someone with an anti gun agenda didn't let an opportunity go to waste perhaps?

    Unfortunately some folks don't find the part about adding gun laws into the mix to be unnecessary. Sadly some folks agree that those extra and unnecessary gun laws are "reasonable" and "acceptable".

    Perhaps a good question is why is it necessary to tie in everything to focus on adding more penalties just because of a gun?

    And an even better question might be ... why are so many folks simply accepting that everything has to default to gun control?

    And perhaps the saddest thing that can be said is that the frog has simmered in hot water for so long he not only accepts gun control as normal but joins the anti gunners with condemning and demonizing those who's exercising the right to bear arms .... offends.

    I am coming from the perspective that there are plenty of laws to punish socially detrimental behavior without adding "while in possession of a firearm" to the list of penalties. And I am pointing out that some in the gun community have become accustomed to having their perspective of the right to bear arms modified from "shall not be infringed" to some infringements are "acceptable" because they seem "reasonable".
    Last edited by Bikenut; November 3rd, 2019 at 07:27 AM.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array scottync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Tobacco Road
    Posts
    5,268
    Embarrassed to say this happened in my home town.

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter View Post
    -snip-
    He is still free to carry. I support his rights to do so. Keep the BS social experiment shenanigans out of it, if you want support from this ardent 2A/gun rights advocate.
    It isn't the Wal Mart guy who wants your, and my, support. It isn't me who wants your support. The right to bear arms... the actual right itself regardless of your, and my, opinions about how it should NOT be done, why it should NOT be done, where it should NOT be done, and which individuals we might think aren't good enough people to be allowed to do it. The right itself wants your, my, and every gun owner/carrier's support because the right itself is for all people to exercise despite opinions and agendas (opinions and agendas that result in laws that infringe).
    baren likes this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by entertainment72 View Post
    You think those two "advocates" convinced the Texas legislature?

    Your reasoning and understanding of causality are a fail.
    No I donít think they, individually convinced the Texas legislature. As a group, OCT did though. You canít use this picture to support your argument, then brush them off as being irrelevant when it doesnít go your way. They either had an effect or they didnít, regardless of whether it supports your anti open carry stance.
    We get the government we deserve.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    The ruling was never on whether or not someone could say it, or anything like that.
    The ruling of the Schenck case was on whether "free speech" protected one from what they said (or wrote). The court decided no protection if it incited criminal acts.

    https://freespeech.fandom.com/wiki/S...rowded_theater
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The ruling of the Schenck case was on whether "free speech" protected one from what they said (or wrote). The court decided no protection if it incited criminal acts.

    https://freespeech.fandom.com/wiki/S...rowded_theater
    As it says in the link, the ruling was over distribution of fliers opposing the draft. It had nothing to do with whether or not you could yell fire in a theater. It was an analogy that the justice used. Itís not something that was ruled on. Schnek was overruled by Brandenburg v Ohio, which is the case that is closer to the point you are trying to make.
    We get the government we deserve.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •