Pushing a Cart in Walmart with an AR-15 and a Pistol while Talking on a Cell Phone

Pushing a Cart in Walmart with an AR-15 and a Pistol while Talking on a Cell Phone

This is a discussion on Pushing a Cart in Walmart with an AR-15 and a Pistol while Talking on a Cell Phone within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Article I couldn't fit "while wearing a bulletproof vest" in the title. "...police are still working to determine his motives and whether he intended to ...

Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 214
Like Tree367Likes

Thread: Pushing a Cart in Walmart with an AR-15 and a Pistol while Talking on a Cell Phone

  1. #1
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434

    Pushing a Cart in Walmart with an AR-15 and a Pistol while Talking on a Cell Phone

    Article

    I couldn't fit "while wearing a bulletproof vest" in the title.

    "...police are still working to determine his motives and whether he intended to shoot anyone."

    Seriously? The man may not have been very bright doing that on the heels of a Walmart shooting, but "talking on his cell phone while pushing a cart" is a huge indication. In fact, that's the first question out of 911 operator's mouths around here when receiving a MWAG call: "What's he doing? Is the firearm holstered or slung? He's not waiving it around... Oh, he's pushing a shopping cart? And talking on a cell phone?"

    When I first began OC back in 2010, I'd walk into Walmart, grab a shopping cart, then throw a couple of groceries in it from the food stands next to the shopping cart.

    It's his right to wear body armor, as well as his right to keep and bear arms (yes, it's plural).

    Not too bright, but well within his rights.

    But if it makes people THAT nervous, instead of infringing on his Constitutional rights, they should exercise their OWN Constitutional rights by carrying their OWN firearms.

    After all, if most people carried, mass shooters would literally become a dying breed.
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array pskys2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    549
    The issue becomes how to ID the bad guy.

    At least in this day, I'd think twice before OC, especially with a Rifle. My luck some yahoo would yell "Drop the Gun" and I'd turn and think he was saying something else and get shot. Only takes a split second for a fool to show himself. I'd rather not give him a chance.

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Article

    Not too bright, but well within his rights.

    But if it makes people THAT nervous, instead of infringing on his Constitutional rights, they should exercise their OWN Constitutional rights by carrying their OWN firearms.

    After all, if most people carried, mass shooters would literally become a dying breed.
    I understand your points, but I see it a bit differently. The vast majority of Americans do not own guns even though they have a right to do so. It is their free choice. Consequently, most people do not carry guns, and even most people who own guns do not carry them. So to suggest what you do is is an overreaching hypothetical. Why not say if killers could not access guns people would be safer? it is the opposite of what you are suggesting. it is what the anti 2A folks say. Trying to get everyone to carry a gun is like trying to stop everyone from carrying a gun. It is not going to happen, so why offer it a solution.

    Yes, the armed man exercised his right and he was pushing a shopping cart and speaking on a cell phone. Is it so inconceivable that a an armed person doing those things could not begin shooting at people? If I saw him I would have had my hand on my gun because I live situational awareness, and that means a civilian with an exposed gun in a Walmart is not going to be assumed by me to not be a possible threat. Why shoud anyone feel differently than I would?

    Finally, especially in light of the still painful Walmart shooting, anyone in tactical gear and open carrying in a Walmart is purposely drawing attention to himself at the expense of others. Yes, he has the right to do so, but is it so wrong to think he has an obligation to not frighten people who now have a heightened sense of danger in a Walmart.

    There is no justification for any gun owner to exercise his right to open carry and abandon common sense in recognizing what reaction he causes in others.
    "You don't hurt them if you don't hit them." Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller

    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June 66 to February 68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Member Array SunTsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Space Coast
    Posts
    215
    This is nearly the same motivation as the actual shooters. This man was likely looking to make headlines, troll police, get famous from his legal but incredibly dumb actions.
    If this is some form of pro-gun activism, he's running the wrong way on the field.
    Guess he deserves credit for trying to get famous without killing people at least.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia, w/summers in Pottsylvania
    Posts
    6,851
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Article

    I couldn't fit "while wearing a bulletproof vest" in the title.

    "...police are still working to determine his motives and whether he intended to shoot anyone."

    Seriously? The man may not have been very bright doing that on the heels of a Walmart shooting, but "talking on his cell phone while pushing a cart" is a huge indication. In fact, that's the first question out of 911 operator's mouths around here when receiving a MWAG call: "What's he doing? Is the firearm holstered or slung? He's not waiving it around... Oh, he's pushing a shopping cart? And talking on a cell phone?"

    When I first began OC back in 2010, I'd walk into Walmart, grab a shopping cart, then throw a couple of groceries in it from the food stands next to the shopping cart.

    It's his right to wear body armor, as well as his right to keep and bear arms (yes, it's plural).

    Not too bright, but well within his rights.

    But if it makes people THAT nervous, instead of infringing on his Constitutional rights, they should exercise their OWN Constitutional rights by carrying their OWN firearms.

    After all, if most people carried, mass shooters would literally become a dying breed.
    Less than a week after a mass shooting in another Walmart and yet another shooting in Dayton, and this guy is walking around with a long gun, armor and ammo.

    If I saw him I'd get out of Walmart; I wouldn't stand around and think "Well, it's his right."

    Timing is everything, and this guy picked the time to be a complete idiot.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -PEF, Refugee from the Island of Misfit Toys

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,442
    A big story about nothing. He didnt commit a crime and had exited the building when someone drew down on him.
    OD*, baren, gatorbait51 and 1 others like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    811
    Every time I see an open carrier whether it be a sidearm or long gun I make a point of thanking them for exercising the right to bear arms. I don't second guess them. I don't judge them. I don't suspect they are about to shoot the place up. I thank them, they note that I am also open carrying, and often a conversation occurs. That conversation becomes an opportunity to discuss holsters, retention training, range exercises, and sometimes ends with my extending an invitation to be my guest at range to do some shooting.

    One day I saw a young mother with 3 young children in tow open carrying while doing her grocery shopping at Wal Mart. She resumed her shopping with a big smile after I thanked her for exercising her right to bear arms.

    In my not so humble opinion entirely too many folks have allowed the leftist anti gunners to intimidate them into not open carrying. After all, anyone who would intentionally open carry knowing guns scare some people (and that must be putting guns in a bad light) must be some kind of jerk and should be shunned and ridiculed..... right? Shunned and ridiculed by both the anti gunners and even some of our own within the gun community.

    And I firmly believe that if more folks open carried the sight of guns wouldn't be a scary thing.

    That which is ordinarily hidden is scary when seen but that which is ordinarily seen becomes ordinary to see.
    awanatech, airslot, ddrew and 5 others like 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

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,448
    Maybe the guy has shopped at Walmart before and is only being prepared.
    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

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array DaGunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,117
    In North Carolina there is a common law called "Armed to the Terror of the Public." It is very vague, open for interpretation, and gives law enforcement/prosecutors wide latitude in its enforcement. It has also been upheld by the NC Supreme Court. I believe this incident had it happened in NC would fall under this law.


    I probably wouldn't have run terrorized out of Wal Mart, but you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't have gotten to my blind side.
    1942bull and Hoganbeg like this.
    KNOWLEDGE: A tomato is a fruit.
    WISDOM: Not putting a tomato in a fruit salad.
    .

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by DaGunny View Post
    In North Carolina there is a common law called "Armed to the Terror of the Public." It is very vague, open for interpretation, and gives law enforcement/prosecutors wide latitude in its enforcement. It has also been upheld by the NC Supreme Court. I believe this incident had it happened in NC would fall under this law.


    I probably wouldn't have run terrorized out of Wal Mart, but you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't have gotten to my blind side.

    I think the NC law is a god one. It calls on people59 exercise common sense. And as I said in my post above, if I had seen him my hand would have been on my gun. That man had a deficiency of common sense, and common sense matters
    KILTED COWBOY likes this.
    "You don't hurt them if you don't hit them." Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller

    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June 66 to February 68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  12. #11
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by pskys2 View Post
    The issue becomes how to ID the bad guy.
    Bingo, and it's the only problem I have with IWB holsters. Looks too much like a thug has jammed a gun in their pants.

    By contrast, a simple Level-II retention holster on the outside of one's pants, nice shirt, neatly tucked, decent pants, tell the the carrier stands a far lower probability of being a criminal.

    At least in this day, I'd think twice before OC...
    I'll think twice, but I'm not about to let another's irrational fears dictate my rational actions.

    ...especially with a Rifle.
    I've only OC'd a rifle while hunting. But I've encountered others who've OC'd rifles, though very few. Doesn't take long to determine they're just out for a stroll and not trolling for some encounter, or worse.
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

  13. #12
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    Lots of great comments, far more than I expected. I'm not going to make 15 more posts, so I'm tucking them all into this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by 1942bull View Post
    I understand your points, but I see it a bit differently. The vast majority of Americans do not own guns even though they have a right to do so.
    CNN claims less than 1/3 of Americans own guns. The Washington Post is even more pessimistic, claiming "roughly 20 to 30 percent of Americans personally own one or more guns" while estimating people overestimate gun ownership at around 43%.

    Both CNN and WaPo are news agencies, which are notoriously inaccurate with their statistics, so let's look at the results of a statistics firm who does this full-time: 41% of Americans either own a firearm or live in a household where someone else owns a firearm. - Pew Research Center

    Looks like what WaPo called a "wildly inaccurate estimate" was pretty darn close to the truth.

    My point is this: One cannot ever call 59% "the vast majority." A majority, yes. Vast majority, no. For that, we'd have to get into three-sigma tails. At the very least, you'd have to exceed 1 standard deviation, or 84% of the population. I still wouldn't call that "vast." A "significant majority," yes, but "vast," no. To be truly "vast," you're going to at least have to hit the second standard deviation mark of 97.7%. That's vast!

    It is their free choice. Consequently, most people do not carry guns, and even most people who own guns do not carry them. So to suggest what you do is is an overreaching hypothetical. Why not say if killers could not access guns people would be safer? it is the opposite of what you are suggesting.
    Not in the least. I suggest the says "shall not be infringed" so do not infringe, but since 95% of Americans are not violent criminals, just respect the law and let things play out.

    Trying to get everyone to carry a gun...
    I never even intimated that, so please do not put words in my mouth. 2A is a right, not a mandate.

    Yes, the armed man exercised his right and he was pushing a shopping cart and speaking on a cell phone. Is it so inconceivable that a an armed person doing those things could not begin shooting at people?
    Is is so inconceivable that anyone who is carrying concealed could not begin shooting at people? Whether you see the firearms or not has NO BEARING on their intent. Whether it's holstered/slung or at the ready has huge bearing on their intent.

    ...a civilian with an exposed gun in a Walmart is not going to be assumed by me to not be a possible threat.
    Ibid.

    Finally, especially in light of the still painful Walmart shooting, anyone in tactical gear and open carrying in a Walmart is purposely drawing attention to himself at the expense of others.
    How is it "at the expense of others?" Their fears are their own responsibility.

    ...he has an obligation to not frighten people...
    This is the same lunatic argument the left uses to squash freedom of speech. They claim they're "offended," whereas those of us who abide by our First Amendment rights see them as being "triggered."

    There is no justification for any gun owner to exercise his right to open carry and abandon common sense in recognizing what reaction he causes in others.
    Try this on for size:

    There is no justification for any bystander to deny others their Constitutional rights and freedoms merely because they' themselves have abandoned common sense by having irrational reactions.

    Again, was he violating the law? No.

    Was he brandishing? No.

    Was he minding his own business? Yes.

    Was he behaving in an irrational or emotionally heightened manner? I didn't see his behavior inside the store, but according to the 911 report, No. According to the video, No.

    Did he exercise the best of judgement? No.

    That last is about the only thing I could ding him on, but even then, provided no laws are broken, that's his right, too.

    Ok, looks like we won't get through a bunch of posts this time around...
    Last edited by OD*; August 9th, 2019 at 01:00 PM.
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

  14. #13
    Member Array Henry9008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Cowtown, USA
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by pskys2 View Post
    The issue becomes how to ID the bad guy.

    At least in this day, I'd think twice before OC, especially with a Rifle. My luck some yahoo would yell "Drop the Gun" and I'd turn and think he was saying something else and get shot. Only takes a split second for a fool to show himself. I'd rather not give him a chance.
    Quite possibly why he was wearing body armor.

    As for the OC of a long gun, (or AR pistol, if it was that), while it may have been a bad move devoid of common sense, it may also have been his reaction to the very recent mass murders and the possibility of a copycat. We have discussed at length the disadvantage that one has with a handgun against a body armor wearing, long gun toting killer. Missouri allows open carry of long guns, it's his right, and maybe he was TRULY concerned about a possible copycat, wanted to even the odds for his survival, and didn't consider the possible psychological fallout from the sheeple. After all, he was just a kid.

    Or, he could have been out trolling law enforcement in a '2A audit' as they call them. In which case, yes, it was an idiotic idea with poor timing.
    baren and gatorbait51 like this.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array CLASS3NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bob from Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,187
    The guy had poor judgement in carrying the AR rifle into the store. Plain and simple.... Maybe it's his "Right" but it was totally Wrong. Just my opinion...( Notice I never mentioned him with a handgun, as I firmly believe he has every right to do so)
    Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll

  16. #15
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    Let's try tackling multiple posts again. Smaller posts, this time:

    Quote Originally Posted by SunTsu View Post
    This is nearly the same motivation as the actual shooters. This man was likely looking to make headlines, troll police, get famous from his legal but incredibly dumb actions.
    That's a remarkable series of assumptions you have there, SunTsu. I refute your assumptions, as do a number of the following comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Less than a week after a mass shooting in another Walmart and yet another shooting in Dayton, and this guy is walking around with a long gun, armor and ammo. If I saw him I'd get out of Walmart; I wouldn't stand around and think "Well, it's his right." Timing is everything, and this guy picked the time to be a complete idiot.
    If society outlawed stupidity, it would solve our population problem...

    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    A big story about nothing. He didnt commit a crime and had exited the building when someone drew down on him.
    Exactly. Should anyone draw on me without my having violated any laws, they will probably be sued. Not a guarantee, but it's likely, as I'm just not very threatening in real life!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Every time I see an open carrier whether it be a sidearm or long gun I make a point of thanking them for exercising the right to bear arms. I don't second guess them. I don't judge them. I don't suspect they are about to shoot the place up. I thank them, they note that I am also open carrying, and often a conversation occurs. That conversation becomes an opportunity to discuss holsters, retention training, range exercises, and sometimes ends with my extending an invitation to be my guest at range to do some shooting.
    Excellent response, Bikenut. I've done the same, with similar results.

    One day I saw a young mother with 3 young children in tow open carrying while doing her grocery shopping at Wal Mart. She resumed her shopping with a big smile after I thanked her for exercising her right to bear arms.
    Another happy camper! Naturally, someone here will say, "but she wasn't slinging a rifle; she wasn't wearing body armor..." Whatever. It all depends on what they're DOING, not what they're wearing or carrying.

    Unless, of course, they're wearing a vest made of dynamite, as is common for certain people of a certain religion to do. That's not a self-defense weapon.

    In my not so humble opinion entirely too many folks have allowed the leftist anti gunners to intimidate them into not open carrying. After all, anyone who would intentionally open carry knowing guns scare some people (and that must be putting guns in a bad light) must be some kind of jerk and should be shunned and ridiculed..... right? Shunned and ridiculed by both the anti gunners and even some of our own within the gun community.
    Well said.

    And I firmly believe that if more folks open carried the sight of guns wouldn't be a scary thing. That which is ordinarily hidden is scary when seen but that which is ordinarily seen becomes ordinary to see.
    Agreed. The staff at the restaurants I frequent have zero problems with my OC.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Maybe the guy has shopped at Walmart before and is only being prepared.
    Agreed. In deference to some of the comments made by others, it was indeed strange and not very smart of his to choose that particular combination, but so long as he's not breaking any laws, it's his right to be as prepared as he desires.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaGunny View Post
    In North Carolina there is a common law called "Armed to the Terror of the Public." It is very vague, open for interpretation, and gives law enforcement/prosecutors wide latitude in its enforcement. It has also been upheld by the NC Supreme Court. I believe this incident had it happened in NC would fall under this law.
    Vague laws are stupid. They're a heinous disservice to the People whom they're supposed to serve.

    I probably wouldn't have run terrorized out of Wal Mart, but you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't have gotten to my blind side.
    Nothing wrong with maintaining awareness!

    Quote Originally Posted by 1942bull View Post
    I think the NC law is a god one. It calls on people59 exercise common sense.
    Nope. Stupid law. We have the same law here in Colorado, but it's NOT vague. Specifically, it covers "causing public alarm," but then carefully defines WHAT causes public alarm (brandishing) and what does NOT (holstered firearm).

    The definition and examples force those with irrational fears to adopt common sense, such as not calling 911 whenever they spot a MWAG. Our 911 operators are trained. They have a MWAG script: "What are they doing? Is the firearm holstered? Is it slung? Are they behaving in a threatening manner?" Most MWAG calls wind up with an admonished but better-educated citizen, something we should all be doing to curb the tide of reactionary idiocy.

    And as I said in my post above, if I had seen him my hand would have been on my gun.
    As I stated before, nothing wrong with being prepared.

    That man had a deficiency of common sense, and common sense matters
    While I'm inclined to agree with you, if common sense were illegal, our society might just be darn near perfect. Are we there, yet? No? Well, wake me when we are.
    Last edited by OD*; August 9th, 2019 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Repair quote
    Havok, Bikenut, Henry9008 and 2 others like this.
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... 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
  •