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

[justabubba]

In a civilized society, bad is not good and good is not bad. The kid acted stupidly, causing reasonable people to see him as a possible threat. Police officers MUST neutralize every potentially threatening situation before investigating whether the apparent threat was real or not.

EVERY arm carried into the pubic space is a potential threat

how is apprehending a person for doing nothing more than bearing arms - as is Constitutionally protected and explicitly stated - something other than infringing upon his second amendment right

 

[Mr Person]

If he did not make any threats what law did he violate? Your response seems more emotional than rational.

This guy did everyone a service in that he has drawn attention to a bit of a dilemma in our laws. What do we do about a guy who does something like what he did but with intent to harm but without violating good peoples right to arm themselves?

He has put gun rights advocates in a difficult position.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You need the applicable statute and cases closest on the facts to answer that.

They arrested him first and later figured out what to charge him with. It has not been reported anywhere that he made any threats.

Minus the threats what if his defense is that due to the current climate he feels unsafe to go out in public unarmed and unprotected. The guy went to an extreme with it but im not sure theres any law preventing him from doing that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

They do that **** all the time. They aren't required to tell anyone what they're being arrested for and they put that to full use, ie, beating a suspect then charging him with disorderly if he maybe exercised his 1st Amd right to say something rude to them

 

[Nickyjo]

You make it a habit of attacking armed and armored people?



Of what?

I said “if I can.” My momma didn’t raise no fool.

As to charging him, I assume menacing or threatening or some form of assault. It might depend, in my layman’s analysis, whether he kept the weapon over his shoulder or had it leveled at people. And of course, he should be charged with felony stupidity.

 

[bearpoker]

§574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty

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:

…

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

"Knowingly" It all hinges on intent. Difficult to prove. He's got the "too stupid to live, but innocent" defense going for him.

 

[bearpoker]

Im not a leftist and i absolutely think the police should of responded and diffused the situtation. Thats their job.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

They did.

 

[marke]

EVERY arm carried into the pubic space is a potential threat
how is apprehending a person for doing nothing more than bearing arms - as is Constitutionally protected and explicitly stated - something other than infringing upon his second amendment right

After being told by everyone and his brother to report any suspicious activities you want to play like the boy with the armor and weapons and ammunition should not have been reported? Why can't leftists just calm down and admit the obvious instead of trying to turn everything around for stupid leftist reasons?

 

[bearpoker]

I dont dispute that people were frightened by his apperance. I am of the opinion that both the msnager and the forefighter both did the right thing.

That said the law you quoted says you have to have the purpose to scare people, IE intent. I have not seen evidence that he display such intent. The way you are interpting the law most of the media and entertainers could be charged with terorism.

Is an escape artist intentionally terrorizing his audience or a horror movie production intentionally tertorizing their audiences. The answer is they are but they are not breaking the law snymore than this guy was.

How about when people forms mobs in political protest out in public. Do we charge them as terrorists.

Walmart has a right to tell him to leave. The police have a right to question him. At the end of the day he is a flaming pile of excrement but he isnt a criminal.

The reason people panicked is because of their stigmas about guns. He didnt cause the panic. His argument could be that he feels intimidated being out in public unarmed, in light of the recent events.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You're reaching here. In a theatrical performance the audience knows the threat isn't real. At Walmart people had no way of knowing that this wasn't a deranged killer. That said, I agree that intent is the key here and has not yet been shown.

 

[trouble13]

You need the applicable statute and cases closest on the facts to answer that.





They do that **** all the time. They aren't required to tell anyone what they're being arrested for and they put that to full use, ie, beating a suspect then charging him with disorderly if he maybe exercised his 1st Amd right to say something rude to them

You being a defense lawyer what do you think would of been the correct way for the police to of handled this?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

You're reaching here. In a theatrical performance the audience knows the threat isn't real. At Walmart people had no way of knowing that this wasn't a deranged killer. That said, I agree that intent is the key here and has not yet been shown.

Yes i was exagetating to make a point but the way the law is interrupted is the point.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

They did.

The only thing im questioning is what they are charging him with.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[bearpoker]

The only thing im questioning is what they are charging him with.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well, they could charge him with terminal stupidity. I'd convict in a heartbeat. Alas, terminal stupidity is not a crime.

 

[joko104]

Who did he threaten?

2A doesn't even apply whatsoever. Specific STATE LAW grants the right to openly carry a weapon. ERASE 2A entirely and it still was his right.

This is to terrorize anyone into abandoning their statutorily granted - specifically granted - right to open carry in that state. It is a local government erasing their elected legislature and government with their anti-gun hatred.

Why do mass shooters feel safe going into a store and shooting anyone they can? Because the police and government has so terrified people not to be able to defend themselves - even if law specifically allows it - they don't.

This is a HUGE win for murderers and criminals whose strongest ally is the police in that city - and so many, many other cities too.

The fascist duty to allow your family, yourself and others to be defendlessly murdered is a constant 24/7 propaganda by the MSM and press of the corporate super rich. They have their private armed army protecting them. They want you totally disarmed so not to endanger them, while having absolute no reason to care whatsoever if any of the peasants are murder, raped, kidnapped or anything else.

I truly can not grasp how cowardly and submissive most Americans are. This truly is amazing to me.

We KNOW from the WalMart mass shooters own words if someone like that guy had been in that WalMart, he would not have shot anyone.

THEREFORE - just as ordered to think - cowardly, ignorant, submissive Americans conclude the solution is to throw in prison people that would prevent mass shootings. What the hell is wrong with you people?

It is an open carry state. People see guns all the time in the open. The manager created the panic with the false fire alarm.

 

[joko104]

I truly cannot understand people. The mix of irrationality, somehow believing they are special so nothing bad can happened to THEM - so take no steps for self defense, the level of cowardice, the me-me-me I only look after me...

The rule of nature is that there are predators. The rule of the human species is there are predators - and lots of them.

In nature, in a conflict between predator and prey, the predator almost always wins. The only exceptions are if the prey herd together defensive or if the prey fights back.

Ancedotal records are worthless on a forum, so I won't. Rather I will say that there is no situation where I being put into the role of "prey" that my focus is not how to turn the tables so I am the predator. I do not give the predator at me "first blow." Circumstantially, this may require initial fleeing and/or hiding, but my fixation is how can make that person my prey as soon as possible?

In mass shooting attacks, if you actually study it, if a prey of the predatory shooter counter attacks, it is usually successful, even if that person is unarmed. A predator does not expect the prey to attack, they are fully unprepared psychologically for it. Whoever is the predator usually is who wins. Yet virtually everyone only acts like prey.

Worse, and stunning, society increasingly demands everyone be prey - and defenseless - to the many, many predatory men in this society. So lots of you people determined to be attacked and harmed by predators predictably are.

The case against that young man is that even though he was exercising an exact right given exactly in state law, his refusal to be a defenseless prey makes him a terrorist. That is so bizarre, such a police state where you are required to be defenseless peasants who may be raped, beat, shot, robbed, kidnapped by ANY predatory man who wants to do so is TRULY SHOCKING to me. To literally declare that if a wildebeast of the heard even take a stance to charge the lioness, the wildebeast should be shot because that something is wrong with it.

Stop ranting against mass murderers. You self absorbed cowards are their accomplishes posting signs "please kill us, we promise we are all defenseless" and now declare you will imprison anyone who isn't claiming that cowardice is the natural law of you as prey against predatory men - so much required to die as prey that this erased actual state law.

You are murdered because you are fully agreeable to and openly invite it. But, then, you think that wish to be the prey will only be granted to others, not you, because you are special prey.

 

[Slavister]

It's funny that I find myself agreeing with some of the right wingers here, though for a different reason.

The guy did not break any laws, and if anything, EXPOSED the nonsensical laws that we DO have, or what 2A became nowadays. Power to him. The more incidents we have like that, the better!

Maybe that will finally get enough of a rise out of people to finally change 2A and significantly tighten gun control laws.

P.S. The guy was doing a social experiment, and the armor also acted as protection for him (hey, why should not he be scared after all the mass shootings).

 

[joko104]

It's funny that I find myself agreeing with some of the right wingers here, though for a different reason.

The guy did not break any laws, and if anything, EXPOSED the nonsensical laws that we DO have, or what 2A became nowadays. Power to him. The more incidents we have like that, the better!

Maybe that will finally get enough of a rise out of people to finally change 2A and significantly tighten gun control laws.

P.S. The guy was doing a social experiment, and the armor also acted as protection for him (hey, why should not he be scared after all the mass shootings).

That IS the good point. He broke no law because exact law said he can do this - and didn't have to have a reason. If what he did should be illegal, get the law changed. That is what elected representative government is about.

Can the government outlaw guns in public? Sure. That goes back to Sheriff's outlawing guns in open in town - while they could open carry out in the countryside. The right to have firearms is the right to have them, not the right to publicly display them or even have them concealed in public. That can be outlawed. To the contrary, that is specifically legal in that state.

While I favor open carry and conceal carry - us on opposition sides of the issue - and I don't think the 2A allows you to ban my having firearms, I completely agree the government would not violate 2A by prohibiting guns in public - displayed or concealed.

In this instance, specifically state law allowed him to do what he did - wisely or stupidly. Anyone may exercise a right - even if everyone hates it, fears it, and it is circumstantially unwise. Don't like that, change the law and/or what to get that person somehow anyway possible irregardless of his clear absolute and known legal rights?

Don't anyone understand the HUGE danger of allowing cops arresting people fully in compliance with law and prosecutors prosecuting someone for doing exactly what the law allows because they don't like that law or that person?

Why can't cops in NYC do stop and frisk? It's a good idea why should cops not just ignore Bill of Rights or Federal courts or law says? Well, the cops, prosecutors and courts should just ignore that. Right? ABSOLUTE NOT. Don't like a law, get it changed. Why can't cops ignore you demanding a lawyer or refusing to answer questions if the crime was really, really bad? Why can't cops beat you until to tell them where you hid the evidence? Why can't cops arrest protesters as terrorists for scaring people? The black marchers on the Selma bridge were "stupid" because they knew they might be attacked - and it upset the white folk - so certainly it was right to arrest and prosecute them? Then try to justify it by saying they were stupid and deliberately being troublemakers.

Don't like something in the Bill Of Rights or a law? Get it changed. Otherwise cops, prosecutors and courts - not just us peasants - have to go by the law and legal rights - like it or not. Cops and prosecutors can't just take away a statutory right claiming THEY decide what is best for everyone, not elected government or any rights a person has. That is called "police and prosecutorial abuse" - because that's what it is, even if you hate the guy and what he did.

 

[joko104]

What if his motive was to protest the law?

To show how absurd, and dangerous it is and how much open carry frightens people? To the police saying "he could have been shot," his answer was "yes, that is one of my points. People being legally allowed walk around with AR15s not only really frightens people, people are going to get shot. I was willing to take that risk to try to get this absurd law eliminated before someone really does get killed - many children in the crossfire between good citizens with guns shooting at each other. Change this insane law, make open carry not legal!"

After all, what he did is 100% legal under his state's law and it isn't like there aren't a million videos of people walking around openly carrying a gun including like an AR15.

If you protest in a perfectly legal way, but it frightens people, that makes you a "terrorist?" Is that then a "terroristic threat?"

Angry protests scare people. People get hunt during angry protests - but protesting also is a right. All angry protesters are engaging in "terroristic threats?"

 

[Glitch]

That IS the good point. He broke no law because exact law said he can do this - and didn't have to have a reason. If what he did should be illegal, get the law changed. That is what elected representative government is about.

Can the government outlaw guns in public? Sure. That goes back to Sheriff's outlawing guns in open in town - while they could open carry out in the countryside. The right to have firearms is the right to have them, not the right to publicly display them or even have them concealed in public. That can be outlawed. To the contrary, that is specifically legal in that state.

While I favor open carry and conceal carry - us on opposition sides of the issue - and I don't think the 2A allows you to ban my having firearms, I completely agree the government would not violate 2A by prohibiting guns in public - displayed or concealed.

In this instance, specifically state law allowed him to do what he did - wisely or stupidly. Anyone may exercise a right - even if everyone hates it, fears it, and it is circumstantially unwise. Don't like that, change the law and/or what to get that person somehow anyway possible irregardless of his clear absolute and known legal rights?

Don't anyone understand the HUGE danger of allowing cops arresting people fully in compliance with law and prosecutors prosecuting someone for doing exactly what the law allows because they don't like that law or that person?

Why can't cops in NYC do stop and frisk? It's a good idea why should cops not just ignore Bill of Rights or Federal courts or law says? Well, the cops, prosecutors and courts should just ignore that. Right? ABSOLUTE NOT. Don't like a law, get it changed. Why can't cops ignore you demanding a lawyer or refusing to answer questions if the crime was really, really bad? Why can't cops beat you until to tell them where you hid the evidence? Why can't cops arrest protesters as terrorists for scaring people? The black marchers on the Selma bridge were "stupid" because they knew they might be attacked - and it upset the white folk - so certainly it was right to arrest and prosecute them? Then try to justify it by saying they were stupid and deliberately being troublemakers.

Don't like something in the Bill Of Rights or a law? Get it changed. Otherwise cops, prosecutors and courts - not just us peasants - have to go by the law and legal rights - like it or not. Cops and prosecutors can't just take away a statutory right claiming THEY decide what is best for everyone, not elected government or any rights a person has. That is called "police and prosecutorial abuse" - because that's what it is, even if you hate the guy and what he did.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue of law enforcement using Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) as grounds to stop someone who is lawfully armed just so they can ascertain whether or not they are in possession of the proper paperwork (license, CCP, etc.). Some State courts have ruled on such practices, like the recent (May 2019) decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Hicks (2019).

Unfortunately, you have other courts, like the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, that consider any firearm carried by someone, other than law enforcement, to be "dangerous" and therefore warranting a "Terry Stop." It is also known as the Robinson Rule from US v. Robinson, No. 14-4902 (4th Cir. 2017). What is even more egregious is that States, like Virginia, doesn't require a CCP holder to inform law enforcement if they are carrying, even during a traffic stop, but they can be detained by law enforcement, just for being armed, because of this Robinson Rule.

In a number of States, like Texas and Arizona, a law enforcement officer may not lawfully detain you if the only reason for the stop involves a lawful activity, such as carrying a firearm. Unfortunately there are still many States that do not hold that position. Until the Supreme Court decides the matter law enforcement is going to continue to get mixed signals.

 

[Glitch]

What if his motive was to protest the law?

To show how absurd, and dangerous it is and how much open carry frightens people? To the police saying "he could have been shot," his answer was "yes, that is one of my points. People being legally allowed walk around with AR15s not only really frightens people, people are going to get shot. I was willing to take that risk to try to get this absurd law eliminated before someone really does get killed - many children in the crossfire between good citizens with guns shooting at each other. Change this insane law, make open carry not legal!"

After all, what he did is 100% legal under his state's law and it isn't like there aren't a million videos of people walking around openly carrying a gun including like an AR15.

If you protest in a perfectly legal way, but it frightens people, that makes you a "terrorist?" Is that then a "terroristic threat?"

Angry protests scare people. People get hunt during angry protests - but protesting also is a right. All angry protesters are engaging in "terroristic threats?"

Unfortunately it depends on one's geographical location. Some areas of the country are much more gun friendly than others. In places like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, etc., it is quite common to see firearms openly displayed. So you are not likely to get hoplophobes calling the police whenever they see a firearm. But in other places, like California, New York, Maryland, etc., you are. It really boils down to your proximity to irrational people.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That IS the good point. He broke no law because exact law said he can do this - and didn't have to have a reason. If what he did should be illegal, get the law changed. That is what elected representative government is about.

Can the government outlaw guns in public? Sure. That goes back to Sheriff's outlawing guns in open in town - while they could open carry out in the countryside. The right to have firearms is the right to have them, not the right to publicly display them or even have them concealed in public. That can be outlawed. To the contrary, that is specifically legal in that state.

While I favor open carry and conceal carry - us on opposition sides of the issue - and I don't think the 2A allows you to ban my having firearms, I completely agree the government would not violate 2A by prohibiting guns in public - displayed or concealed.

In this instance, specifically state law allowed him to do what he did - wisely or stupidly. Anyone may exercise a right - even if everyone hates it, fears it, and it is circumstantially unwise. Don't like that, change the law and/or what to get that person somehow anyway possible irregardless of his clear absolute and known legal rights?

Don't anyone understand the HUGE danger of allowing cops arresting people fully in compliance with law and prosecutors prosecuting someone for doing exactly what the law allows because they don't like that law or that person?

Why can't cops in NYC do stop and frisk? It's a good idea why should cops not just ignore Bill of Rights or Federal courts or law says? Well, the cops, prosecutors and courts should just ignore that. Right? ABSOLUTE NOT. Don't like a law, get it changed. Why can't cops ignore you demanding a lawyer or refusing to answer questions if the crime was really, really bad? Why can't cops beat you until to tell them where you hid the evidence? Why can't cops arrest protesters as terrorists for scaring people? The black marchers on the Selma bridge were "stupid" because they knew they might be attacked - and it upset the white folk - so certainly it was right to arrest and prosecute them? Then try to justify it by saying they were stupid and deliberately being troublemakers.

Don't like something in the Bill Of Rights or a law? Get it changed. Otherwise cops, prosecutors and courts - not just us peasants - have to go by the law and legal rights - like it or not. Cops and prosecutors can't just take away a statutory right claiming THEY decide what is best for everyone, not elected government or any rights a person has. That is called "police and prosecutorial abuse" - because that's what it is, even if you hate the guy and what he did.

I have to agree with Joko

The guy broke no laws, he did not threaten anyone, other than with his presence and being armed with a rifle causing people to be afraid.

Had he pointed the gun at anyone, or held in it a way that would allow he to shoot in a second or two, that could be a potential terrorist act. But as I understand it the gun was always slung on his shoulder and not brandished.

As no law was broken by carrying the gun, and having the police gain the ability to arrest people because they scare someone, is not something the US should move to.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

 

[Glitch]

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.

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

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, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable.

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.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

Amazing.

You aren't a lawyer. You prove that by thinking you can read a statute and two sentences of a state constitution, not bother with any case law, and declare a result with absolute certainty. It has not begun to dawn on you that maybe I do appeals in criminal cases and therefore know for the fact that is not how it works. Not even close. Not even remotely.

Why do so many of you do this?

I understand the desire to want to have a valid opinion about how to interpret laws that touch everyone. What I don't understand is the idea that all you have to do to answer a legal question is read a few lines and then say words.




Truly amazing. If you want to be sure it won't hold up in Court, you go find controlling precedent on all four corners. Then you'll have an argument. Weave a web of various precedents hovering around the main point, you'll have less of an argument but better than nothing.

 

[Glitch]

Amazing.

You aren't a lawyer. You prove that by thinking you can read a statute and two sentences of a state constitution, not bother with any case law, and declare a result with absolute certainty. It has not begun to dawn on you that maybe I do appeals in criminal cases and therefore know for the fact that is not how it works. Not even close. Not even remotely.

Why do so many of you do this?

I understand the desire to want to have a valid opinion about how to interpret laws that touch everyone. What I don't understand is the idea that all you have to do to answer a legal question is read a few lines and then say words.




Truly amazing. If you want to be sure it won't hold up in Court, you go find controlling precedent on all four corners. Then you'll have an argument. Weave a web of various precedents hovering around the main point, you'll have less of an argument but better than nothing.

I can think of no better precedent than the current one. If there is a conviction on that bogus charge, then you can be absolutely certain it will be appealed. We don't put people in prison because some leftist idiot can't control their own emotions and becomes afraid. That is the irrational mental condition of the accuser, and not a criminal act by the accused. When the courts inevitably toss this moronic law as being unconstitutional it will put you snowflake lawyers in your place.

Considering about much "fear" Trump has instilled in the mentally deranged irrational left I'm surprised you haven't tried to charge him with making terrorist threats. ROFL! Snowflakes are so pathetic.

 

[Mr Person]

I can think of no better precedent than the current one. If there is a conviction on that bogus charge, then you can be absolutely certain it will be appealed. We don't put people in prison because some leftist idiot can't control their own emotions and becomes afraid. That is the irrational mental condition of the accuser, and not a criminal act by the accused. When the courts inevitably toss this moronic law as being unconstitutional it will put you snowflake lawyers in your place.

Considering about much "fear" Trump has instilled in the mentally deranged irrational left I'm surprised you haven't tried to charge him with making terrorist threats. ROFL! Snowflakes are so pathetic.

You don't even know what precedent means. You literally do not know what it means and yet you're still typing. Well, that's that then.

 

[bearpoker]

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.

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, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable.

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.