Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
2) Legit operators won't wear vests over their clothes and walk around with an AR over their shoulder in grocery stores. There are personal protection and various security companies that utilize individuals armed with vests and rifles as part of various jobs/details. These types of details typically would not 'operate' a shopping cart in a Walmart in that attire. Generally, if someone is employed in a function that requires armor/vests AND they are in a PUBLIC space, they will wear something that shows who they are / why they are appearing the way they are. The private security patrolling a billionaire's mansion is not who I am talking about.
3) While you cannot control a bike or a person coming in front of your car, you are often responsible for swerving around them if they do. You can't just hit them if you have the ability to move around them. In this sense, you have a duty, while driving, to attempt to not hit people, even if they get in your way. While you have a 2A right to bear arms, you do not have a right to induce a mass panic. There are limitations to all of the amendments. We have freedom of speech, but you are not free to slander people or businesses. We are not free to use speech as a call of action to instigate harm to another. We are not free to use speech to harass or assault others. I am as big of a supporter of the second amendment as anyone else, but there is a very fine line between bearing arms for safety/security and using arms for attention and to scare the public.
I still think that context is key. There is a lot of context with the 2A, for example, I don't want my neighbor owning nuclear weapons. That is a restriction on the right to bear arms that I think we are all okay with. In this case, it seems logical to think that this guy chose Walmart as his location for "2A Awarenes" solely because it was the location of a recent mass-shooting. It also seems logical that he likely knew that his presence would easily and justifiably scare multiple people. He wasn't charged with a weapons violation. He was charged with terrorism charges related to causing a panic. That is a very important distinction. I'm not arguing against his right to own an AR, pistol, or vest. I am arguing that he chose to use the three to intentionally cause duress to others, which is not, and should not be okay.
4) I don't know. I don't know if the AR was on a sling. If it was on a sling, I don't know if he had it on his back or front. If it was on a sling in his front, it is likely that he handled it at some point. Walking around with a weapon in your hand, in a Walmart, seems like a brandishing charge.
2. You are still missing the point reasonable people might have all kinds of explanations why a fairly clean dude would show up with a previous lily discussed equipment.
3. You’re wandering too much to put effort into refuting. I will repeat my fear is that what you and I today consider completely appropriate will one ‘cause a panic’ and that will be used to crush our way of life. That’s why we have to be careful to pay attention to his actions and his intentions as he walked around with previously agree constitutionally protected equipment. Otherwise you fall into the trap of the focal point being on the gun not the loose nut on the butt pad.
4. It all boils down to his behavior while equipped for me. I will say again he’s an idiot for going to Walmart after the Walmart shooting equipped that way but if he was doing nothing aggressive he’s just another idiot.
Im not sure the legal definition of brandishing a weapon but if it’s holding it or touch it in public I would find it next to impossible to avoid with a long gun outside a case.
Last edited: