Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case

Glitch said:

That law does not square with Section 23 of the Missouri State Constitution:

The law also will not hold up in court. Charging people with criminal acts because other people are afraid is placating the snowflake generation and will be laughed out of court. You can only be held accountable for your actions, not the "feelings" of others.

Click to expand...

Tell Charlie Manson that.

The way I read that Missouri law is that it is for defending your home and property, not strutting around in public wearing full armor and loaded with weapons. You'll have to find another law that does that. But I don't think even the second amendment will protect him on that score, either.

Mr Person said:

One of the ways terroristic threats there may be proved is "(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life."

Walking around in body armor with a rifle after two mass shootings, in the only developed country they seem to happen anywhere near this regularly, seems like a pretty easy way to violate the statute.

Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 574.115 Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty.



Full:

  574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree if such person, with the purpose of frightening ten or more people or causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:

  (1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

  (2) Communicates a false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

  (3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.

  2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree is a class D felony.

  3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.


But as with any question of law, you'd really want to do some in-depth research in MO and if there isn't anything close enough, cases interpreting similar statutes in other states.

Click to expand...

Without going into another statute states specifically he may open carry a firearm, which negated that, #3 has him covered as he also stated it was for self defense. The CLAIM that people would be terrified seeing because of the WalMart shooting just days before - is the exact proof that it is possible he was concerned and had the same fear others had. Thus, what he did was in good with the purpose to prevent harm. That includes harm to himself.

Can't have it both ways. Can claim his guilt is it was known people in Walmart were afraid of a mass shooter being in a WalMart - while claiming the exact opposite that he did not.

Nor is there any evidence of his intention to cause an evacuation or cause fear for their lives. "Testing the law" is obviously testing the law (police, courts) - not testing the law by testing WalMart shoppers. He did not make any communication threatening to harm anyone - that also being a requirement.

I am not guilty for what you do because of your motivations - not mine. The effect is not the standard, the required proof is proving he consciously acted for the deliberate purpose to terrorize people - not that what he did may have done so. It does not matter what anyone else's motivate was. We do know it was the manager setting off a false fire alarm, not the guy with the gun, that caused the evacuation. Nor had he communicated anything whatsoever, not a word, to that manager.

Specific law in his state is that it is legal to openly carry in public. Therefore, as a matter of law, he may do so. It really is that simple.

The Missouri State Constitution says:

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person (ie himself), family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned.

State Constitution specifically says he can have a gun in defense of himself. Period. That is why in Missouri you need no permit of any kind to carry a firearm - concealed or in public? Why? Because the Missouri Constitution guarantees that right.

I guess according to that police department and prosecutor they could decide that white and black people being together causes a lot of problems and black people scare some old white women, so they have re-established forced racial segregation in businesses and bathrooms.

While discrimination also is prohibited in the same constitution, whatever the police and prosecutors say makes people feel safest is all that matters. Thus, the standard of what is criminally illegal is whatever any police officer or prosecutor says it is depending upon whether or not they like or dislike what they claim you did.

bearpoker said:

I may be completely off the wall, but I don't think a citizen needs two loaded firearms and body armor to defend his property and person on a trip to Walmart.

Click to expand...

Why is it the left always think they know what other people need?

Moot said:

Tell Charlie Manson that.

The way I read that Missouri law is that it is for defending your home and property, not strutting around in public wearing full armor and loaded with weapons. You'll have to find another law that does that. But I don't think even the second amendment will protect him on that score, either.

Click to expand...

So now someone who has not broken any law is the equivalent to a mass-murdering convict because of what he chooses to own and lawfully carry. I think you used up your quotient of hyperbole for the month.

Glitch said:

Why is it the left always think they know what other people need?

Click to expand...

In this case, it's what other people don't need.

Glitch said:

Why is it the left always think they know what other people need?

Click to expand...

Society has always done that.

bearpoker said:

In this case, it's what other people don't need.

Click to expand...

In a poll I started asking people what would they do in that situation if they had their CCW (small pistol), some replied they would not go up against an AR15 with a handgun - and the murderer himself said he would not shot where there is armed defense - particularly since that armed defense may wear body armor. That mass shooter said he would not have shot anyone if someone exactly like that guy was.

So you are fully ok with the people being murdered and shot in the other WalMart? In fact, everyone shot in that other WalMart was killed or shot specifically because someone like him was not at that WalMart.

haymarket said:

Society has always done that.

Click to expand...

No, society hasn't. Only the fascist left. The anti-American left always think they have the authority to tell others what they do or don't need. It is an obvious symptom of their mental illness.

Glitch said:

No, society hasn't. Only the fascist left. The anti-American left always think they have the authority to tell others what they do or don't need. It is an obvious symptom of their mental illness.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you don't like living in a civilized society, is that it?

An op-ed from Slate.

What “double-checking” the Second Amendment costs the rest of us.

By its very definition, white privilege is the ability to film yourself conducting a “social experiment” with military-grade weapons at the same chain where a mass shooting just happened, without being shot dead in your tracks. Trayvon Martin wasn’t even granted the luxury of being allowed to conduct a “social experiment” with a bag of Skittles.

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

So now someone who has not broken any law is the equivalent to a mass-murdering convict because of what he chooses to own and lawfully carry. I think you used up your quotient of hyperbole for the month.

Click to expand...

Charles Manson didn't kill anyone....so what laws did he break?

So do you think the cops should've waited until he started shooting people at Walmart before apprehending him?

The man posed a threat whether it was his intention or not.

Don't runaway, I'm not through with you, yet. lol

Moot said:

Charles Manson didn't kill anyone....so what laws did he break?

So do you think the cops should've waited until he started shooting people at Walmart before apprehending him?

The man posed a threat whether it was his intention or not.

Don't runaway, I'm not through with you, yet. lol

Click to expand...

every armed person in the public sphere poses a potential threat

what did this one do, which violated the Constitution/law

justabubba said:

every armed person in the public sphere poses a potential threat

what did this one do, which violated the Constitution/law

Click to expand...

Not according to the NRA.

He posed a threat to public safety. You should read the preamble to the US constitution, sometime.

Moot said:

Not according to the NRA.

He posed a threat to public safety. You should read the preamble to the US constitution, sometime.

Click to expand...

You know that, legally speaking, the preamble is completely meaningless, right? The Supreme Law of the Land is contained within the Articles and Amendments of the document, not the introductory Preamble.

Moot said:

So what you're saying is you don't like living in a civilized society, is that it?

Click to expand...

I don't consider leftist fascism to be civilized.

Glitch said:

No, society hasn't. Only the fascist left. The anti-American left always think they have the authority to tell others what they do or don't need. It is an obvious symptom of their mental illness.

Click to expand...

Society has always done that as part of creating the environment people want to live in.

Moot said:

Not according to the NRA.

He posed a threat to public safety. You should read the preamble to the US constitution, sometime.

Click to expand...

you have the opportunity
share with all of us the provisions of the preamble, which will allow us to understand why someone should be arrested for bearing arms in a public place

Glitch said:

You know that, legally speaking, the preamble is completely meaningless, right? The Supreme Law of the Land is contained within the Articles and Amendments of the document, not the introductory Preamble.

Click to expand...

True, but it does state the intent of "We the People" and what kind of government we agreed to in order to form a more perfect Union. In it is says, the People want a government to insure the domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. The SCOTUS often refers to the Preamble for the framers intent when interpreting the Constitution and the Amendments.

justabubba said:

you have the opportunity
share with all of us the provisions of the preamble, which will allow us to understand why someone should be arrested for bearing arms in a public place

Click to expand...

We (the founders) formed a government to insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. In this case, the armed man was posing a threat to our domestic tranquility and the government did it's job in providing for our common defense by apprehending him.

Moot said:

True, but it does state the intent of "We the People" and what kind of government we agreed to in order to form a more perfect Union. In it is says, the People want a government to insure the domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. The SCOTUS often refers to the Preamble for the framers intent when interpreting the Constitution and the Amendments.

Click to expand...

You know that "We the People" had absolutely nothing to do with the US Constitution, right? The document was written in secret and its fate was decided by 9 of the 13 State and Commonwealth legislatures. The people had absolutely no say in the matter. The Supreme Court never refers to the preamble when determining the constitutionality of the law. All you have is sophistry and deliberate lies. You will have to do much better.

Glitch said:

I don't consider leftist fascism to be civilized.

Click to expand...

Historically, Fascism has always been a right wing ideology and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Moot said:

Historically, Fascism has always been a right wing ideology and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Click to expand...

You're obviously not a very good student of history. Benito Mussolini is the founder of fascism and a devote socialist, and he defined fascism as "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Which is very leftist indeed.

Glitch said:

You know that "We the People" had absolutely nothing to do with the US Constitution, right? The document was written in secret and its fate was decided by 9 of the 13 State and Commonwealth legislatures. The people had absolutely no say in the matter. The Supreme Court never refers to the preamble when determining the constitutionality of the law. All you have is sophistry and deliberate lies. You will have to do much better.

Click to expand...

You know that the US Constitution is a 'social' contract, right?

Social contract - Wikipedia


I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has referred to the Preamble when deciding case law....

U.S. Constitution Preamble, Cites to Case Law

Glitch said:

You're obviously not a very good student of history. Benito Mussolini is the founder of fascism and a devote socialist, and he defined fascism as "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Which is very leftist indeed.

Click to expand...

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.