Open carry question [W:46]

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
his rights are not infringed in any manner whatsoever by anyone simply carrying a firearm.

especially when he gets shot by the dude without being able to get to his gun--another 11 on a 10 scale from the 2A -

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
i'm not in Florida....

but you know about it so why deflect??

why are you assuming a person that does not intent to commit a crime would carry the rifle in a threatening manner

How do you know he doesn't intend to commit a crime??
Incredible that the level of discussion is now protecting rifle-carriers in open..

..( which is a crime in and of itself, thereby negating the whole "does not intend to commit a crime " argument put forth by the OP.)

Who is around to deal with this crime you speak of--the store owner would be dead??

of course, i'm making an assumption that a person who does not intent to commit a crime would carry their firearm in the correct legal manner.... but my assumption is more in tune with reality than yours.

Not at all--and classic for you to end with an incorrect slam .

ALiberalModerate · Jun 17, 2014

ecofarm said:
There's no more reason to believe an open carry is about to attack you than a person driving a car nearby.

Only a very small percent of Americans walk around openly carrying an assault weapon every where they go. A store owner will see countless cars pull up, park, then leave in the course of a day. So there is no reasonable expectation on their part that any one of those car owners intends to use that vehicle as a weapon. However, that same store owner may never see someone walk into their store openly brandishing a gun. If and when that does occur, it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that individual may intend to do them harm as the vast, vast majority of gun owners do not walk into stores, bars, and restaurants with a rifle hanging over their shoulder.

I grew up in a family of avid hunters. We always had a house full of guns. Go to my dad's house during deer season and to get anything out of the deep freeze half the time you got to move a 7mag and a couple of shot guns off the lid first. We had guns sitting between us in the truck seat for damn near half the year, never one time did we ever walk into a store carrying one.

ecofarm · Jun 17, 2014

SouthernDemocrat said:
Only a very small percent of Americans walk around openly carrying an assault weapon every where they go. A store owner will see countless cars pull up, park, then leave in the course of a day. So there is no reasonable expectation on their part that any one of those car owners intends to use that vehicle as a weapon. However, that same store owner may never see someone walk into their store openly brandishing a gun. If and when that does occur, it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that individual may intend to do them harm as the vast, vast majority of gun owners do not walk into stores, bars, and restaurants with a rifle hanging over their shoulder.

It is not "perfectly reasonable" to presume someone intends to do harm just because they open carry and such is rare. It's paranoid.

Goshin · Jun 17, 2014

American said:
If the rifle was shouldered, it's murder. If the patron were holding it in his hands, it might not be murder.

Way way way back in the days of dinosaurs, when I rode a T-rex to the State Police Academy, we were told that if the muzzle of a held firearm moves to within 45 degrees of a threatening direction, we were allowed to construe that as a threat... IF the totality of the circumstances added up to an imminent threat.

Again, like the "fire triangle", there's an Assault triangle...

Ability
Opportunity
Intent/Jeopardy behavior.

A person standing there with a firearm not pointed at you, who has not otherwise communicated threat towards you, has Ability and Opportunity but has not yet shown Intent... unless he's done something else like break in through the window, or some such.

Now if open carry was illegal or the store was posted against same, you'd have a better case, since his open carry constituted an illegal act in itself. If it is legal, not so much.

But I will say this... if a guy walked in my store with a long gun at "low ready"... well sir he'd better watch himself reaaaaaaaaallllly careful... because if that muzzle twitches in my direction it's boom time.

On a shoulder sling, or in a case, or held in a non-firing position is entirely different of course.

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
especially when he gets shot by the dude without being able to get to his gun--another 11 on a 10 scale from the 2A -

if he gets shot, you can then argue his rights were violated.... but beings we are talking about a person walking into a store NOT INTENDING TO COMMIT A CRIME... you are yet again talking out of your ass.

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
but you know about it so why deflect??

that wasn't a deflection.. it was correcting you .

How do you know he doesn't intend to commit a crime??

because the OP said so in his first post

Incredible that the level of discussion is now protecting rifle-carriers in open..

yes it is incredible.. it shows just how irrational you anti-gunners have become when a law abiding person cannot even carry a rifle without you wanting to kill them

Who is around to deal with this crime you speak of--the store owner would be dead??

dead from who?... the OP specifically stated the person does not intent to commit a crime?....why are you making up a completely different scenario?

Not at all--and classic for you to end with an incorrect slam .

I stated nothing that was incorrect

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
if he gets shot, you can then argue his rights were violated....

so store owner must first before action can be taken--just wow--

but beings we are talking about a person walking into a store NOT INTENDING TO COMMIT A CRIME...

look who's talking out of whose--though I won't repeat your word coming next:

you are yet again talking out of your ass.

so when you are clearly wrong, you resort to this "gun forum" 2A talk -

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
so store owner must first before action can be taken--just wow--

yes, there must be some sort of threat to his person in order for him to start shooting the carrier.

look who's talking out of whose--though I won't repeat your word coming next:

i'm sorry i'm following the scenario given to us by the OP and not the one you concocted out of whole cloth in your head..... wait, no... i'm not sorry.

so when you are clearly wrong, you resort to this "gun forum" 2A talk -

i'm not wrong.

Goshin · Jun 17, 2014

Holey Hannah I don't think I can take the ignorance in this thread...

one more time...

Ability
Opportunity
Intent/Jeopardy behavior

All three of these things are required for Assault! All three are required for the subject to be Shootable! And the threat must be IMMINENT (right now)!

AOI depends on Totality Of Circumstances! It must pass the Reasonable Man Test!
Lawd, get educated a little if you want to discuss things like this! It's not rocket science.

Was it legal for the guy to open carry into the store? Was the weapon held in a threatening or non-threatening manner? Was any criminal act committed otherwise? Was any threat communicated verbally or otherwise? All these things matter, and add up to why you can't just go around shooting people who MIGHT be a threat. They have to demonstrate threat behaviors in a fairly specific manner under most circumstances.

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
because the OP said so in his first post

yet you cannot guarantee this, but are willing to take ever more chances--

yes it is incredible

no, it is a complete disaster and bastardization of the 2A--

it shows just how irrational you anti-gunners have become when a law abiding person cannot even carry a rifle without you wanting to kill them

what it shows is just how far you people will go to push the envelope of your "rights" over the "rights" of others--
oh, and good with the lame anti-gunner meme --

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

Goshin said:
Holey Hannah I don't think I can take the ignorance in this thread...

one more time...

Ability
Opportunity
Intent/Jeopardy behavior

All three of these things are required for Assault! All three are required for the subject to be Shootable! And the threat must be IMMINENT (right now)!

AOI depends on Totality Of Circumstances! It must pass the Reasonable Man Test!
Lawd, get educated a little if you want to discuss things like this! It's not rocket science.

Was it legal for the guy to open carry into the store? Was the weapon held in a threatening or non-threatening manner? Was any criminal act committed otherwise? Was any threat communicated verbally or otherwise? All these things matter, and add up to why you can't just go around shooting people who MIGHT be a threat. They have to demonstrate threat behaviors in a fairly specific manner under most circumstances.

oh that's nice, assaulting people brains with factual information... now their gonna think it's OK to shoot you too.

:lol:

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

zero store-owners should ever be put through the "open-carrying-of-a-rifle" gun rules set down by Goshin in post #35 .

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
yet you cannot guarantee this, but are willing to take ever more chances--

whic his why you remain vigilant... and not just open fire on a guy for simply carrying.

no, it is a complete disaster and bastardization of the 2A--

more anal yammerings.

what it shows is just how far you people will go to push the envelope of your "rights" over the "rights" of others--
oh, and good with the lame anti-gunner meme --

i'm not pushing the envelope on anything... you are sitting in here saying the store owner should blast away ( incorrectly applying SYG laws) over some nonexistent infringement of his rights.

a person legally carrying a firearm is NOT infringing on anyone's else rights... that is a simple fact... a simple solid fact.

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
oh that's nice, assaulting people brains with factual information...
now their gonna think it's OK to shoot you too.

all store owners should have to post these rules by Goshin, memorize them, and then live by them every-time a rifle-toter comes in his store--unblievable --

Spartacus FPV · Jun 17, 2014

99percenter said:
How is the store owner supposed to know?

Because the assault rifle is slung over his shoulder, he does not have it in his hands at the ready and pointing it at people.

That's like saying how is a person who see's someone walking a Pit Bull supposed to know that he is well trained and not a threat.

What kind of paranoid store owner are you conceiving?

NIMBY said:
all store owners should have to post these rules by Goshin, memorize them, and then live by them every-time a rifle-toter comes in his store--unblievable --

Someone not pointing a gun at your is a pretty simple concept to understand.

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
zero store-owners should ever be put through the "open-carrying-of-a-rifle" gun rules set down by Goshin in post #35 .

I've been a store owner... lots of folks open carried in my store... I didn't mind one damned bit.

Goshin · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
zero store-owners should ever be put through the "open-carrying-of-a-rifle" gun rules set down by Goshin in post #35 .

They aren't my rules (they're legal precedent), and they aren't rocket science.

If the guy points the gun towards you, shoot him!
If they guy is breaking the law in so doing and acting in a threatening manner, shoot him!

IF OTOH he's holding a long gun casually in his off hand by the middle and it is pointed at the ground, he's OBVIOUSLY NO THREAT!

I've made these kinds of calls more times than I can possibly remember, and all it takes is a modicum of common sense.

Heysoos Krastus you guys drive me insane sometimes, acting like the simplest things are complicated, and presenting complicated things as if they were 1st grade math...

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
whic his why you remain vigilant... and not just open fire on a guy for simply carrying.

no one should ever have to remain viglant because you want to open-carry a rifle into his store--

more anal yammerings.

less maturity from you..

i'm not pushing the envelope on anything...

yes you are--

you are sitting in here saying the store owner should blast away

never once directly said this blatant irrational lie--now know as a BIL for you--

( incorrectly applying SYG laws) over some nonexistent infringement of his rights.

yes--because living is nsuch a nonexistent right--

a person legally carrying a firearm is NOT infringing on anyone's else rights... that is a simple fact... a simple solid fact.

now it's a firearm--
what scares you people so much you have to push open-carry rifle--
or are you trying to scare "normals"--the incoherent/insane/revolutionary NRA/TEA way -

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
all store owners should have to post these rules by Goshin, memorize them, and then live by them every-time a rifle-toter comes in his store--unblievable --

no.. all people, not just store owners, should know these "rules" posted by Goshin.

of course, most people already know them ( it's instinctual, actually)... it's only a very few idiots that can't understand them and abide by them.

Serenity · Jun 17, 2014

Moderator's Warning:

Let's stop with the baiting, personal comments directed at each other and just focus on the topic without all the other nonsense. Zero tolerance going forward. You want to stay active in this thread then you play nice. Thanks.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 17, 2014

99percenter said:
If a dude walks into a store with an assault rifle with no intention to commit a crime and the store owner shoots him is that justifiable homicide?

No. Why would the simple possession of an "assault" rifle be perceived as any more of a threat than seeing a person with a machete, sheathed knife or a holstered handgun? Assault requires more than the mere possession of a weapon or one could simply execute any police officer (or hunter) "coming toward them" and then claim self defense.

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Goshin said:
They aren't my rules (they're legal precedent), and they aren't rocket science.

If the guy points the gun towards you, shoot him!

]
This means you as the store-owner must have the gun in your hand to defend yourself as soon as you see the rifle-toter--
listen to yourself--

If they guy is breaking the law in so doing and acting in a threatening manner, shoot him!

kind of hard to do when the open-carry rifle-toter has the jump on him--
that would be a 2A advantage, but a direct infringement on the guy's life--

IF OTOH he's holding a long gun casually in his off hand by the middle and it is pointed at the ground, he's OBVIOUSLY NO THREAT!

so now the store-owner must keep a constant eye on the open-gunner by your own words--just wow--

I've made these kinds of calls more times than I can possibly remember, and all it takes is a modicum of common sense.

the real life card--just a matter of time--

Heysoos Krastus you guys drive me insane sometimes,

and you--

acting like the simplest things are complicated, and presenting complicated things as if they were 1st grade math...

nothing complicated about wanting to stay alive and not get shot by a rifle in the back--
if he doesn't leave my store, I close the store -

Thrilla · Jun 17, 2014

NIMBY said:
no one should ever have to remain viglant because you want to open-carry a rifle into his store--

everybody should remain vigilant... even when there's not a guy legally carrying a firearm.

less maturity from you..

stop talking out of your ass and i'll stop pointing out that you're talking out of your ass.... it's a simple concept.

yes you are--

nope.. i'm talking about perfectly legal behavior.. legal behavior that has been acceptable for hundreds of years... i'm well within the envelope.

never once directly said this blatant irrational lie--now know as a BIL for you--

yes, you said he is "standing his ground"... which directly implies the store owner should shoot him

yes--because living is nsuch a nonexistent right--

legally carrying a firearm does not cause anyone to die... it does NOT infringe on anyone's right to life.
your argument here is astoundingly moronic... absolutely stupid.

now it's a firearm--

yes, rifles are firearms.... i can on;ly imagine your surprise.

what scares you people so much you have to push open-carry rifle--

.. I don't have to push for open carry.. it's already legal everywhere i live.

or are you trying to scare "normals"--the incoherent/insane/revolutionary NRA/TEA way -

I have no control over your emotions... if you piss your pants at the sight of a firearm, that's your problem, not mine...

i'm not trying to scare anyone when i carry ( except maybe those who would do ill will around me).... only those whom mean ill will are trying to scare other people.

I can't communicate the vast number of ****s i don't give about your partisan idiocy..

Linc · Jun 17, 2014

Thrilla said:
no.. all people, not just store owners, should know these "rules" posted by Goshin.

of course, most people already know them ( it's instinctual, actually)... it's only a very few idiots that can't understand them and abide by them.

Who are you insinuating that those very few idiots are, since Goshin "lokes" that post?
Doers every American store-owner have the onus on him to know what you think your "rights" are when you open-carry a rifle into his store ?

Open carry question [W:46]

Is it justifiable?

yes

no

NIMBY

NIMBY

Pragmatist

global liberation

Burned Out Ex-Mod

NIMBY

Burned Out Ex-Mod

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

Better You = Better World

Burned Out Ex-Mod

NIMBY

Stay Human

Sometimes wrong

NIMBY

NIMBY