Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Another Nut Job


Smoken D

Recommended Posts

On 8/9/2019 at 10:03 PM, Wapaloosie73 said:

 

Except in this case the man was open carrying in a open carry state. Probably unwise in today’s political climate but what laws did he break?

 

Although I understand your frustration. Criminals seem to get away with a slap on the wrist nowadays.

With fools like this it won’t be an open carry state for long 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michigan Slim said:

I have a real problem with this approach 40. You didn't say what kind of ice cream. Can I have chocolate syrup on mine?

Depends on the state.  California may not allow dairy products with sugar and chocolate (because if the nicotine).  You also can't legally have it in a paper or plastic container and can't use plastic spoons.

 

Wisconsin will allow it only if it is a Wisconsin product and it must served with a huge slice of cheddar on the side.  Be careful of labeling.  I saw Utah cheese labeled as Wisconsin cheddar and even the guys from Wisconsin were fooled.

 

In "retirement states" like Florida or Arizona it maybe mandatory to have ice cream and your selection of flavors are up to you.  No background check is necessary if you have ID showing that you are over 50 years of age.

 

In some places you must buy from a licensed dealer and face a waiting period.

 

Check the local laws before you try it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2019 at 4:00 PM, Smoken D said:

when he recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation of any portion of a building and knowingly communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life or knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.

 

This echos the Schenck (1919) decision:
 

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

My take on the application of Schenck to the 2nd: 

If we translate Schenck to apply to the 2nd, it would read something like “The most stringent protection of the rights to keep and bear arms would not protect a man in wantonly opening fire in a public place and causing death, injury, and panic.  It does not even protect a man who brandishes a firearm in public with the intent of causing fear and panic among the people.”

Note the parts I rubricated and/or underscored. Violation has to include the intent to cause people to perceive a threat.  Could be that Mr. Dumbass didn't think that open carry with no brandishing was, or would be, considered threatening behavior.  Was he a dumbass for dressing the way he did, carrying what he was carrying, and having that much ammo on his person, especailly after the recent events?  No doubt about it.  

We are getting dangerously close to thought police here, almost like those fake "quotes" attributed to leftists about owning guns is proof that someone intends to commit murder.  Naturally I can't find those fakes when I want them for examples.




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitutionally, there is no prohibition to shouting “FIRE” in a theatre!! What the admonishment actually says is that doing so is NOT covered under “protected speech”!

 

You can legally, under federal law, shout “Fire” in a theatre. What the ruling statement says is that if you do, you can and will likely be held responsible for any damage or injuries that result from your doing so.

 

As near as anyone can say, the idiot in this case didn’t “brandish” either weapon. He kept the long gun slung on his shoulder and never reached for it or the holstered handgun.

 

Local or state ordinances may apply, but Constitutionally, not so much.

 

You’re STILL a dumbassed idiot if you do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Really?  How will we ever know?

I meant the idiot is not helpful to gun owners constant battle to prove we are not unsafe jackasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Constitutionally, there is no prohibition to shouting “FIRE” in a theatre!! What the admonishment actually says is that doing so is NOT covered under “protected speech”!

 

You can legally, under federal law, shout “Fire” in a theatre. What the ruling statement says is that if you do, you can and will likely be held responsible for any damage or injuries that result from your doing so.

 

As near as anyone can say, the idiot in this case didn’t “brandish” either weapon. He kept the long gun slung on his shoulder and never reached for it or the holstered handgun.

 

Local or state ordinances may apply, but Constitutionally, not so much.

 

You’re STILL a dumbassed idiot if you do!

 

 

Exactly.  Schenck lays it out nicely, that there must be intent to cause panic and/or harm.  
That said, given recent envents, I can see calling the police as you watched the guy, and, again given recent events, cops stopping the guy and asking pointed questions of him.  And informing Mr. Dumbass that while he is within his rights, he should consider all the consequences of his actions. Up to and including someone panicing and shooting Mr. Dumbass in his dumbass.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When this news first came out I had to wonder if he was a "YouTuber"? There are many on social media that do videos where they put themselves in a position to show the abuses of authority. They don't actually trespass but rather walk around the perimeters of military bases, energy facilities, government buildings, etc. while filming. When confronted it always devolves into stating their rights and court cases to back up their arguments. To me it's nothing more than trying to instigate a confrontation and gain some sort of notoriety. 

In this case I'm just glad someone confronted him before the worst happened.

 

CBG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be a wait and see with a challenge to the courts that's for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

 

Exactly.  Schenck lays it out nicely, that there must be intent to cause panic and/or harm.  
That said, given recent envents, I can see calling the police as you watched the guy, and, again given recent events, cops stopping the guy and asking pointed questions of him.  And informing Mr. Dumbass that while he is within his rights, he should consider all the consequences of his actions. Up to and including someone panicing and shooting Mr. Dumbass in his dumbass.  

And here’s where it gets tricky. Cops show up and, assuming the guy isn’t shot, given the fact that this guy is carrying an AR, wearing a tac vest with extra mags and is in a Walmart only one day after a mass murder at a Walmart by a rifle carrying psycho what do you do? 

As a police officer, you talk to the guy, ask him pointed questions, tell him to make better decicisions and send him on his way? An hour later you get the dreaded call of an active shooter. No. At the least I would have taken him in for a psych hold.

 

You get blamed for violating his rights on one hand or blamed for not preventing a tragedy on the other. Lose lose situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

And here’s where it gets tricky. Cops show up and, assuming the guy isn’t shot, given the fact that this guy is carrying an AR, wearing a tac vest with extra mags and is in a Walmart only one day after a mass murder at a Walmart by a rifle carrying psycho what do you do? 

As a police officer, you talk to the guy, ask him pointed questions, tell him to make better decicisions and send him on his way? An hour later you get the dreaded call of an active shooter. No. At the least I would have taken him in for a psych hold.

 

You get blamed for violating his rights on one hand or blamed for not preventing a tragedy on the other. Lose lose situation. 

 

Your solution is the correct one.  In the event that there was no intent of harm to anyone, the only thing lost is a little time.  If there is any indication the the suspect planned violence, the situation has been avoided.  The bad news is that the news media, in EITHER case, will make the worst of it for all law abiding persons who choose to go armed for their own protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, I suffered a brief bout of inarticulosity! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.