*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

Absolutely. I get the hunting angle. My whole family up north in Pennsylvania are all hunters.

But these assholes have no pressing need... only a desire to wave their dicks in front of everyone else because it's the only way they can feel in control.

And that's how I pretty much feel about it too. You can own them, you can carry them concealed, and you can blast a hole in a solider who has been twisted by the horrible energies of Chaos, but walking into restaurants and coffee shops does provoke that feeling of "Really? Really??" from me.​
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Broken record mode engaged - Open carry, like the rest of the 2nd amendment, isn't about hunting or home defense. It's the "bear" part of keeping and bearing arms. And it's acceptable to open carry long arms - it's just you should have them on your back, not in front/at "low ready" unless you are actively preparing to shoot. When the story broke, there was no description of how the rifles were being carried - now we know, and yes, they were carrying them like douchenozzles.

Open carry correct -



Open carry INCORRECT-

 
Exactly. Carry your fucking gun on your back like a fucking adult, act like an adult while carrying it, and you will be treated as one. Presentation. I think we're arguing the same point here, Gas.
 
You wander around my workplace on my shift with a kalashnikov in full view, I'm still calling the cops on your ass. We already have armed security. They're called the Star City Police Department. On your back or not, you're still just waving your dick around.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You wander around my workplace on my shift with a kalashnikov in full view, I'm still calling the cops on your ass. We already have armed security. They're called the Star City Police Department. On your back or not, you're still just waving your dick around.
There's no rule against calling the cops when you feel it's appropriate. It's up to the cop who arrives on the scene to determine what more, if anything, needs to be done about it. And bear in mind, West Virginia is an open carry state. Ironically much more open than Texas.
 
It's up to the cop who arrives on the scene to determine what more, if anything, needs to be done about it.
If the person calling it in says that he is calling because of "two guys armed with rifles," I'm sure the composition of the response team will be a little different.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
If the person calling it in says that he is calling because of "two guys armed with rifles," I'm sure the composition of the response team will be a little different.

--Patrick
Not if the dispatcher asks intelligent questions and realizes the caller is in needless hysterics.
 
If the person calling it in says that he is calling because of "two guys armed with rifles," I'm sure the composition of the response team will be a little different.

--Patrick
Not to mention that each business has the right to not allow weapons on their premises.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Not to mention that each business has the right to not allow weapons on their premises.
As previously mentioned several times, the "right to refuse service" is trumped by constitutional rights in the case of restaurants, hotels, and certain other venues of public access.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
In the state of Texas, if you let alcohol cross your lips, you lost your right to bear arms.
You lose the right to all kinds of things when you're intoxicated, including just being in public, in some cases.

But what you should have pointed out is that even Texas, by and large, doesn't allow open carry. Which is true. But some people are working on that. The problem is, as I say often, there's no bureaucrat like a Texas bureaucrat.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
As previously mentioned several times, the "right to refuse service" is trumped by constitutional rights in the case of restaurants, hotels, and certain other venues of public access.
Has there been a Supreme Court case on this? Because unless there has been, this is just your opinion, and not the law. In North Carolina, it's illegal to carry a firearm in any establishment that sells alcohol. If that violated constitutional rights, then where is the challenge to that, and why hasn't the Supreme Court struck it down?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Has there been a Supreme Court case on this? Because unless there has been, this is just your opinion, and not the law. In North Carolina, it's illegal to carry a firearm in any establishment that sells alcohol. If that violated constitutional rights, then where is the challenge to that, and why hasn't the Supreme Court struck it down?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

The supreme court ruled that federal constitutional law applies to restaurants, hotels, areas of public recreation because such areas affect and are affected by interstate commerce. The ruling was specifically about racial segregation, but what's good for one amendment is good for another.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

The supreme court ruled that federal constitutional law applies to restaurants, hotels, areas of public recreation because such areas affect and are affected by interstate commerce. The ruling was specifically about racial segregation, but what's good for one amendment is good for another.
Nope, not in this case. A person is born a specific race or sex. That is not something that they can leave at home, or check at a door. People are not born with guns in their hands, and no one is physically dependent on having a gun 24/7 to live. Most states prohibit carrying firearms into liquor stores. Many more prohibit them in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. This is not the same thing as race.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Nope, not in this case. A person is born a specific race or sex. That is not something that they can leave at home, or check at a door. People are not born with guns in their hands, and no one is physically dependent on having a gun 24/7 to live. Most states prohibit carrying firearms into liquor stores. Many more prohibit them in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. This is not the same thing as race.
Which is completely irrelevant. The second amendment to the US constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If federal law trumps local in the case of racism (by way of the interstate commerce clause of all things) then it certainly trumps in the case of the 2nd amendment, which applies to all races.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Which is completely irrelevant. The second amendment to the US constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If federal law trumps local in the case of racism (by way of the interstate commerce clause of all things) then it certainly trumps in the case of the 2nd amendment, which applies to all races.
And the meaning of that amendment, and it's application, is determined by the Supreme Court, which has not determined that the right to keep and bear arms means that they are allowed to be born at all times in all places. Unless you can show me show me a court case where someone challenged the right of states to restrict the carrying of arms into certain businesses, or in schools, or anywhere else, then it's just your opinion, and has no bearing on how the law is actually applied. Your understanding of the phrase means absolutely shit.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
And the meaning of that amendment, and it's application, is determined by the Supreme Court, which has not determined that the right to keep and bear arms means that they are allowed to be born at all times in all places. Unless you can show me show me a court case where someone challenged the right of states to restrict the carrying of arms into certain businesses, or in schools, or anywhere else, then it's just your opinion, and has no bearing on how the law is actually applied. Your understanding of the phrase means absolutely shit.
Settle down, Beavis.

Obviously it doesn't apply to private property in most cases. The supreme court has, as I linked, however, ruled that rights guaranteed by federal law can be enforced on certain private businesses such as restaurants and hotels. That sets precedent. The specific question of open carry hasn't been forced to the supreme court because it's been upheld in lower courts - remember, "open carry" states vastly outnumber the "licensed carry" and "no carry" states. Even the very case that we're talking about, the dumbasses in Chipotle - there were no arrests, and chipotle "asked" people not to do it rather than flat out banning it because it knows the true legality of the matter; you can bet their legal department went over their statement for every nuance and implication. That the supreme court hasn't ruled on my right to chew bubblegum in public doesn't mean I don't have it. It's a slightly annoying privilege often exercised by the supreme court, as well, to simply say "nope, not for us, you guys figure it out amongst yourselves" and leave it at that - which is why every single legal debate doesn't end up before them.
 
As previously mentioned several times, the "right to refuse service" is trumped by constitutional rights in the case of restaurants, hotels, and certain other venues of public access.
Fine. Call your lawyer later. In the meantime GTFO of my hotel. Argue "constitutional rights" all you want, but the safety and security of the other 70+ rooms is my responsibility and comes first.
 
Fine. Call your lawyer later. In the meantime GTFO of my hotel. Argue "constitutional rights" all you want, but the safety and security of the other 70+ rooms is my responsibility and comes first.
Wait, is he trying to say personal freedoms trump the freedoms of business? Not very libertarian of him.
 
Wait, is he trying to say personal freedoms trump the freedoms of business? Not very libertarian of him.
What are you talking about? All business freedoms fundamentally derive from personal freedoms. In this case, it's the freedom of the gun owner to carry his gun when he wishes versus the shop owner's freedom to do business with whom he wishes. In a Libertarian world view, both would be accommodated: The gun owner could enter the public store, but the guy running the register can refuse to do business with him until he gets rid of it.

However, Gas has to accept the current government in which he lives in, which has decided that shop owners don't have the right to refuse service to people based on certain criteria, of which political affiliation is one of them. Because just about everything can be construed as free speech, carrying your gun in public could be a political statement... and refusal to do business with someone because of their politics is illegal. So what he's really saying is that our government has decided that personal trumps business in this case... but for reasons that have nothing to do with the business at hand.
 
What are you talking about? All business freedoms fundamentally derive from personal freedoms. In this case, it's the freedom of the gun owner to carry his gun when he wishes versus the shop owner's freedom to do business with whom he wishes. In a Libertarian world view, both would be accommodated: The gun owner could enter the public store, but the guy running the register can refuse to do business with him until he gets rid of it.

However, Gas has to accept the current government in which he lives in, which has decided that shop owners don't have the right to refuse service to people based on certain criteria, of which political affiliation is one of them. Because just about everything can be construed as free speech, carrying your gun in public could be a political statement... and refusal to do business with someone because of their politics is illegal. So what he's really saying is that our government has decided that personal trumps business in this case... but for reasons that have nothing to do with the business at hand.
Ugh, our county is stupid sometimes.
 
Ugh, our county is stupid sometimes.
The real failure here is that it hasn't been addressed by the Supreme Court... but it's not their fault because no one has brought it to them yet. No one wants to get sued, so everyone is tap dancing around the subject. But if it WAS brought before them, they would need to decide if the safety of the public is more important than someone's right to express political belief lawfully... which suddenly turns int...

- the safety of the public is less important than an individual's right to express political opinion, as long as it's performed in a lawful manner
or
-the manner in which political beliefs are expressed can be dangerous and some methods therefore can curtailed, even if the act itself is guaranteed under the law where it is performed

The first results in the clarification of open carry laws (you may carry your guns in THIS manner and only this manner while in public and not actively using the weapon). This doesn't violate the 2nd amendment because it only declares your right to bear arms, not the manner in which you may bear them. We've already decided on that the moment we decided we could license people for concealed carry. This is probably what will happen.

I don't even want to go into the second because all kinds of shit could suddenly because illegal because what constitutes "unsafe for the public" would have to be stated. Can a town decide flag burning without a permit isn't okay because it could start a bigger fire and suddenly not issue permits? How about having a public gathering at all? All kinds of scary shit happens down that road.
 
Wait wait wait... We have a big sign outside our gatehouse entrance saying "NO FIREARMS OR WEAPONS ALLOWED ON PREMISES." It means exactly what it says. I have seen similar ones on many other establishments (restaurants, bars, gas stations) in the state, after concealed-carry was approved by the legislature.

So because the US Constitution says "right to bear arms", any idiot can attempt to walk into my place of work - A JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - with a gun and not expect to be turned away?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Wait wait wait... We have a big sign outside our gatehouse entrance saying "NO FIREARMS OR WEAPONS ALLOWED ON PREMISES." It means exactly what it says. I have seen similar ones on many other establishments (restaurants, bars, gas stations) in the state, after concealed-carry was approved by the legislature.

So because the US Constitution says "right to bear arms", any idiot can attempt to walk into my place of work - A JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - with a gun and not expect to be turned away?
I'm pretty sure a juvenile correction facility falls outside the scope of Katzenbach V. McClung, since the rationale for the decision is how a business affects interstate commerce. It's basically mostly about restaurants and hotels - and I don't think it's flexible enough to call juvie a "hotel."

The real failure here is that it hasn't been addressed by the Supreme Court... but it's not their fault because no one has brought it to them yet. No one wants to get sued, so everyone is tap dancing around the subject. But if it WAS brought before them, they would need to decide if the safety of the public is more important than someone's right to express political belief lawfully... which suddenly turns int...

- the safety of the public is less important than an individual's right to express political opinion, as long as it's performed in a lawful manner
or
-the manner in which political beliefs are expressed can be dangerous and some methods therefore can curtailed, even if the act itself is guaranteed under the law where it is performed

The first results in the clarification of open carry laws (you may carry your guns in THIS manner and only this manner while in public and not actively using the weapon). This doesn't violate the 2nd amendment because it only declares your right to bear arms, not the manner in which you may bear them. We've already decided on that the moment we decided we could license people for concealed carry. This is probably what will happen.

I don't even want to go into the second because all kinds of shit could suddenly because illegal because what constitutes "unsafe for the public" would have to be stated. Can a town decide flag burning without a permit isn't okay because it could start a bigger fire and suddenly not issue permits? How about having a public gathering at all? All kinds of scary shit happens down that road.
This is a very well written, savvy post and I'm kind of jealous I didn't write it.
The Koch brothers want his membership card and blazer badge back.
They came and kicked me in the shins when I backed Harry Browne in 2000. Then in 2004 they took away my bowler hat, held it out, punched a hole through it from underneath, and set it back on my head.
 
Drunk guy open carries, police act reasonable (for once).

'Why don't you shoot me?'
Around 4 p.m. on Sunday, May 4, Kalamazoo Public Safety dispatchers begin getting calls from the public about a man carrying a rifle outside Cork Street Coin and Laundry, 823 E. Cork Street, on the city's southeast side.
The first caller reports seeing a "Caucasian man with white hair and pajama pants walking with what looks like and AK-47."
A second caller says he saw an older man walking down the street with what looked to be an assault rifle, although he admits it could also be a pellet or BB gun. He says the man had the gun up by his shoulder and "didn't look dangerous or nothing." The dispatcher asks if the gun is in the man's hands, to which the caller replies it is not. "He's an elderly man and I just want to make sure everything's all right," he says.
A third caller gives police more cause for alarm. "There's an older gentleman carrying what looks like a large semi-automatic rifle through the streets," the male caller says. "He does appear to be intoxicated; he's stumbling around a little bit and kind of bumping into some stuff."
KDPS Sgt. Sean Gordon is the first officer to arrive. From the dash cam footage from his patrol car, his vehicle can be seen pulling into the Cork Street Laundry at 4:09 p.m. as Houseman walks east on the sidewalk along Cork Street. Houseman crosses the street diagonally toward the Auto Zone parking lot, and Gordon engages him in conversation.

Gordon: Hey partner, how you doing? Can you set that down real quick and talk to me?
Houseman: I'm not setting it down.
Gordon: Well you can't cross the street like that.
Houseman: Am I being detained?
Gordon: Yes, you are being detained right now. You crossed the street illegally. Place the weapon down on the ground please.
Houseman: I will not.
Gordon radios that it appears the man will not drop his rifle.
Gordon: "Look, you crossed the street illegally; I just want to talk to you. I just want to talk to you. You're walking around here scaring people, man.

A second Public Safety vehicle arrives just after 4:11 p.m. About a minute later, Gordon asks Houseman for his name. Houseman says he is "Joe Schmoe."
"Based on training and experience I know that this is a euphemism used as an alias and knew it was not correct," Gordon would later write in his report.

Houseman: I am free to go?
Gordon: "No, you're not free to go. Right now you're committing a crime of resisting and obstructing (for failing to identify himself after being stopped for jaywalking). Now you've stepped up to a misdemeanor crime.
Houseman: Why don't you (expletive) shoot me?
Gordon: I don't want to shoot you; I'm not here to do that.

As the interaction continues, Houseman talks of a coming revolution, and calls police officers "gang members" with a "history of violence." While the audio is scattered -- Houseman was across the street from Gordon and it was a somewhat windy day -- Houseman can also be seen grabbing his genitals and making lewd gestures toward Gordon.
The officer showed ENORMOUS restraint here.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Just to nitpick, that was not an "open carry" situation. He wasn't wearing it, he was wielding it. Same as if he'd had a pistol in his hand instead of in its holster. From the conversation with the officer, it's clear Houseman doesn't understand the 2nd or even the 1st amendment (the 1st amendment doesn't allow you to threaten people, contrary to Houseman's assertion that it does). Also he was obviously drunk and refusing a breathalyzer. The police did show remarkable restraint, during and after the encounter. I'm very surprised charges weren't brought - I'm not sure it was the best thing to do, in fact, letting this guy off without at the very least a public intoxication citation.
 
Top