if such open carrying in that place is generally not a crime. So holds St. John v. McColley (D.N.M. Sept. 8, 2009), which grants summary judgment to the seized person on his Fourth Amendment claim:
Defendants lacked a justifiable suspicion that Mr. St. John had committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a crime. Indeed, Officer McColley conceded that he did not observe Mr. St. John committing any crimes and that he arrived at the theater with the suspicion that Mr. St. John was merely “showing a gun”, which is not illegal in the State of New Mexico. Nor was there any reason to believe that a crime was afoot. When they found him, Mr. St. John was peacefully sitting through the previews for his second movie of the day. Officers had no reason to believe that Mr. St. John had been, was, or would be involved in any criminal activity whatsoever. [Footnote: Defendants contend that Mr. St. John was about to commit a crime because, had he refused to comply with their request that he leave the premises, he would have been trespassing. If accepted, this argument would significantly erode Fourth Amendment protections. Because the Court finds no jurisprudential support for Defendants’ novel contention, no further discussion of it is necessary.] ...Moreover, Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention. For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Holding that the search violated Ubiles’ Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers “that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.”
The Tenth Circuit has also dealt with this question. In United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993) the Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.... Though the King court ultimately found that King’s detention was non-investigatory and could, thus, be justified under the officer’s community caretaker function while he advised King of the hazardous conditions that his honking created, the King rationale does not apply here because Defendants had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place.
More broadly, Defendants’ actions are not protected by the community caretaker exception because they had no basis for believing that anyone’s safety was at risk. Defendants simply received a report that an individual was carrying a firearm in a location where individuals could lawfully carry firearms. They received no indication that Mr. St. John was behaving suspiciously or in a threatening manner. When Defendants arrived, they found Mr. St. John sitting peaceably in the Theater preparing to watch a movie. They had no basis for believing that Mr. St. John’s use of the weapon was likely to become criminal, cause a public disturbance or pose a threat to safety. Nor did anyone seem particularly alarmed by Mr. St. John’s weapon. Indeed, the record does not reveal that anyone—including the lone customer who spoke to Officer McColley about Mr. St. John’s gun—was even concerned enough to have left the Theater as a result.
The case has since been settled, so there will be no appeal.
DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because He’s Openly Carrying a Handgun says:
[...] Read it. [...]
troll_dc2 says:
Why would anyone want to take a loaded handgun into a movie theater?
Could the theater (presumably privated owned) legally have ordered him to leave?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:23 pmpdb says:
Why would a black man want to go into a movie theater?
Could the theater (presumably privately owned) legally have ordered the black men to leave?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:30 pmSteve2 says:
There’ve been multiple state court rulings out of Virginia holding the same thing... typically in the form of a particular city losing lawsuits brought by people who were arrested under similar circumstances to Mr. St. John’s.
And Troll_dc2, I’m not sure about any other state, but when I took my Virginia concealed carry class, I was taught that you can try to carry into a place with a “No guns allowed sign”, and that’s perfectly legal (assuming it isn’t one of state law’s no-guns-allowed places) up until the point they ask you leave. Them asking you to leave is legal, you and your gun staying after that isn’t.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:30 pmKazinski says:
Because he habitually carries a loaded handgun and wanted to watch a movie?
In Washington state, based on CCM percentages, an average movie screening with 100 adults will have about 5 people carrying loaded hand guns, so I’d suggest you turn off your cell phone before the movie starts.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:34 pmFub says:
So if somebody shouted “Fire!”, he would be prepared to do it??
Thankew, thankew. I’ll be here all week. Try the chicken Kiev, and be sure to tip your waitperson.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:35 pmblargh says:
Yeah! Black people are just like loaded guns! Guns are tools designed to kill things, and black people are likely to kill things. Therefore, they’re the same!
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:53 pmzippypinhead says:
What a fascinating little §1983 case! The plaintiff’s summary judgment grant, finding a violation of his Constitutional rights, seems rock solid. But IMHO the denial of the officer’s qualified immunity could have gone either way — just playing devil’s advocate (I’m a lawyer, I don’t have to actually believe the positions I take...), let’s assume this characterization of the facts set forth in the opinion:
“The defendant police officers responded to the theater on the report of a person carrying a gun, and were told by the manager that the plaintiff/subject was upsetting other customers. At this point, the officers were legally justified in investigating further to ensure that, even though open carry is lawful, the patrons’ upset had not been caused by the individual brandishing or otherwise unsafely handling the firearm before the officers arrived. Police ordinarily have discretion to make such investigatory inquiries in a number of ways, including interviewing third party witnesses, and/or interviewing the subject directly. After first speaking with the complainant theater manager, they chose the latter course of action as being less intrusive for the other patrons in the theater. In their discretion, the officers decided to remove the subject outside to a less crowded venue for the interview (whether for crowd safety or to keep from disrupting the movie with their talking may be immaterial). However, the officers removed the subject by making physical contact and initiating an “escort hold.” Once outside they conducted what was in essence a Terry protective frisk, and temporarily took possession of the firearm, made it safe, and ran a trace. Whether this physical contact amounted to battery, however, is a question for the trier of fact and not appropriate for summary judgment. Upon completion of the investigation, the police released the subject, permitting him to return to the movie after locking his firearm in his truck (which, while not legally necessary, may have been an advisable suggeestion as a matter of common sense to avoid further “upset” and/or an almost-immediate claim by the theater management that the subject was unwelcome and thus was trespassing).”
Yeah, I know, that’s not the only way the facts can be read (and isn’t the way the Judge saw them). But spun this way, there’s an argument the police contact was not such a clear violation of Constitutional norms as to abrogate the officers’ qualified immunity. And given the relatively brief duration of the unconstitutional seizure and lack of permanent injury or property damage, plaintiff’s damages under the §1983 claim were relatively de minimus (leaving aside the jury question on the battery claim, of course).
Regardless, I have to: (a) commend the plaintiff for remaining calm and being fully compliant with over-the-top officer behavior and thus not making the situation worse (advice that’s taught in all good CCW courses and the NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home program), and (b) rue the fact that many police officers — who routinely deal with potentially dangerous criminal suspects and crime guns in their work — would feel they have to physically restrain and interrogate a citizen engaged in lawful, peaceful, open carry.
I’d be curious as to what Officer Whit or another LEO who comments here thinks of the situation on a practical level.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:05 pmTom says:
Or, ya know, maybe he was saying since neither were doing anything wrong and simply wanted to go about their lives....Nah, much easier to fall back to shrieking about racism.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:25 pmPubliusFL says:
No. The actual comparison is that some people have an irrational bias against both of them.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:27 pmTim says:
I think this would have been great if it went to trial, even if only to test the limits of qualified immunity.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:38 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Fub, go to your room.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:01 pmUncleWin says:
Irrational? Sorry, but if I’m watching The Hangover with my girlfriend and some dude walks in carrying a .45 in his hand, I’m hitting the doors. And so would each and every one of you. But maybe we all just have “irrational” fears of strangers carrying extremely deadly weapons into enclosed spaces with limited exits.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:12 pmDaniel Chapman says:
“if I’m watching The Hangover with my girlfriend and some dude walks in carrying a .45 in his hand, I’m hitting the doors. And so would each and every one of you.”
No, for those of us who grew up around guns and didn’t just learn about them from TV, seeing one doesn’t cause us to run for our lives.
Watching the Hangover, on the other hand...
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:25 pmblargh says:
I agree! l just wanted to make pdb’s comparison more clear: since black people are like guns, the desire to keep the former out is just like, or at least comparable to, the latter.
Query: do you think that a theater owner should be able to prohibit a person wearing a firearm from entering their place of business, but not a black person? Or do you believe they should be able to prohibit both, or neither?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:36 pmHoward Bowman, MD says:
Too bad the Thugs with Badges aren’t going to go to jail, lose their homes, pickups and pensions for denying this citizen his Constitutional Rights, under the color of authority.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:10 pmmjohns2 says:
Someone who is open carrying is not walking around with a gun in their hand. It is holstered on their belt.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:23 pmPolice may not even temporarily detain a person for carrying a handgun « The Gut Cup says:
[...] Another good volokh post. [...]
ChrisTS says:
NO, Fub. Mummy thinks you are hilarious and she says you can stay up (ignore Daddy).
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:41 pmKazinski says:
UncleWin:
Try to educate yourself on what the issue is before you comment on it. “Open Carry” refers to wearing a gun in a holster in plain sight. Holding a gun in ones hand will probably be considered “brandishing” and that is illegal.
Open carry is also legal in many jurisdictions where concealed carry isn’t. In California open carry is legal in any un-incorporated area. In Washington (and many other states) concealed carry requires a permit, open carry does not.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 8:06 pmUncleWin says:
Oh, I didn’t realize that was the hypothetical (since no one had said that).
I’m sorry, I’m as libertarian as the next reader of this blog, but there is nothing whatsoever irrational about fearing strangers with guns. Take it from someone living in Chicago right now.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 8:07 pmUncleWin says:
Try to not to get too snarky, because you don’t like my opinion. No, I don’t know much at all about concealed or open carry laws. I’m opining that there is nothing irrational about being afraid of a stranger with a loaded handgun in an enclosed space. That opinion does not hinge on the minute legal distinctions made within whatever jurisdiction I happen to find myself.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 8:13 pmBill Quick says:
What is rational about your fear?
It seems entirely driven by emotion to me.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:02 pmPintler says:
In Chicago, sure, because they’re probably breaking the law. In much of the country, it is unremarkable. Heck, I just got home from running a match where there were plenty of strangers with guns, and half of them weren’t police :-)
FWIW, how do you tell if someone is carrying legally? What I have heard is that holster==legal; people carrying illicitly want to be able to toss the gun and deny having had it, and a holster makes that hard to do. Someone quietly carrying in a holster is almost certainly legal.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:04 pmSplunge says:
I’m opining that there is nothing irrational about being afraid of a stranger with a loaded handgun in an enclosed space
So if he wasn’t carrying a gun, you wouldn’t be afraid of him? What if he’s carrying a pocket knife? A baseball bat? Or is just a foot taller than you with biceps like your thighs, and looks like he’s just snorted half a gram of coke?
Are you sure it’s rational to fear the weapon and not the man? Let us suppose it’s actually the latter. In that case, what you might be saying is that around here (i.e. Chicago) a guy carrying a gun is probably a lawbreaking gangbanger, so, yeah, I fear him. That’s pretty rational. I’ve lived on the South Side myself.
But then, what other people are saying is that, where they live, a man carrying a gun in a holster is very probably a law-abiding citizen who aims to protect himself (and possibly you, too) if some cokehead Chicago thug happens to be passing through.
Viewed this way, both your and their judgments of the man with the gun are rational — but notice that neither is based solely on the fact of his carrying a gun. Rather, in both cases, the judgment of the man is based on whether his carrying of the gun in a particular context is indicative of good character or bad.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:18 pmKirk Parker says:
It’s totally awesome that the court took note of this. This is something that we see far too often–folks pretending to be fearful of a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun, when what’s really happening is that they are offended by it.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:21 amAnon says:
UncleWin, troll_dc2, others from urban areas who have never seen a pickup with a rifle rack carrying rifles:
This was a D.N.M. case. The theater was in the thriving metropolis of Alamagordo, N.M.
Believe it or not, folks in places like Alamagordo own guns and carry guns on a daily basis and never shoot people and never threaten to shoot people. The general mindset is *not* that guns are for shooting people. Only city-dwellers think that way.
Often the gun is loaded with snakeshot. You know, to shoot rattlesnakes. I’m not kidding.
If you ever stepped out of your pickup and heard a rattler next to your leg, you might understand a bit better.
Other folks carry a handgun because they run their trap lines every day. I’m not going to explain that to you because you’ll call PETA. Or they live on a ranch and are constantly shooting coyotes, etc. that are attacking calves, chasing chickens, or otherwise causing problems.
Anyway, think of it as leaving your toolbelt on becuase you might need the tool on short notice.
(grew up in rural AZ).
Quote
October 2, 2009, 4:58 amDaily Pundit » The State Naturally Seeks A Monopoly On Force says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Beca... [...]
Maureen says:
As someone who once stepped out of a car at a CA scenic overlook and found out that the whole place was _surrounded_ by rattlesnakes (fortunately at a distance), I totally understand the above poster’s point! That keychain pocketknife felt pretty useless....
My first assumption on seeing a holster would be that the guy was an off-duty police officer, followed by thinking it was a normal person with a proper license, or some kind of bodyguard if with someone and wearing a suit. “Evildoer” would be pretty low on the list.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 5:54 amSnaphappy says:
Please, continue the trend of carrying loaded weapons around and bringing them to political rallies. Nothing is surer to result in laws against open carry. Then we won’t have to worry about lunatics who “habitually” walk around with loaded weapons.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:07 amFraggle Rock says:
Like police officers?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:15 amSnaphappy says:
They don’t do it out of habit, they do it because it is required for their job.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:18 amFraggle Rock says:
I guess that makes them better than us poor, dumb citizens.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:26 amSayUncle » Open Carry says:
[...] [...]
Sara says:
I can accept that its no big deal to carry in Alamagordo, except someone complained and the officer made the arrest, so did they not understand that this was no big deal in their town? Why is that?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:03 amGabriel McCall says:
In Chicago, this fear may be perfectly rational in that you have a reasonable expectation that someone carrying a gun is doing so unlawfully and with violent intent.
That is not a reasonable expectation in any jurisdiction where peaceful citizens may lawfully carry weapons. The fact that someone is armed does not automatically mean he is dangerous, except in places where only criminals may go armed.
Do you fear for your life walking down a sidewalk? At any moment, a driver might decide to jump the curb and run you down. If he did decide to do that, you would have very little warning nor means of escape– you are helplessly trusting your life to strangers who have the physical means to kill or badly injure you, every time you step outside. And yet, somehow, life goes on... because the vast majority of people have no desire or intent to do harm even when they are armed with the physical means of doing so.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:07 amchris says:
And yet the percentage of them committing crimes is much higher than the percentage of people that legally own guns that commit crimes.
If you really want to feel uncomfortable, I am heading to a dinner meet for opencarry.org tonight. There will be at least 20 of us open carrying in a BBQ joint tonight. My guess is that it will be the safest place in town.
For more reading, see State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574 (1921):
——————————————-
For those of you freaking out about the comparison to being black. Race is a civil rights issue, so is the Right to keep and bear arms is it not? Further since a lot of gun laws were instituted with the express intent of disarming “undesirable” populations, is not the whole issue a fundamental racial equality issue? Surely no one will argue that the people that need to carry firearms for their own protection the most are those hard working, decent folk that live and work in the inner cities that are so plagued with violence. Most of those people are indeed minorities.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:24 amPhatty says:
One reason is that people who regularly carry a handgun do not want to leave the handgun unprotected in their car in the parking lot, where it could be stolen by a bad guy.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:28 amDonP. says:
“if I’m watching The Hangover with my girlfriend and some dude walks in carrying a .45 in his hand, I’m hitting the doors. And so would each and every one of you.”
Please be sure to “scream like a little girl” on the way out so we know which one you are.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:35 amFraggle Rock says:
Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:39 amchris says:
heh
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:43 amAnon says:
Sara, RTFC.
There was no arrest. They made him put his gun in his truck so that the one person who complained (yet didn’t leave) would shut up.
The gun owner then went back and watched the rest of the movie.
My guess is that Easterners are retiring or moving to places like Alamogordo and causing all sorts of problems like this.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 9:12 amdivemedic says:
I carry a loaded weapon almost everywhere I go. I would point out that people carrying weapons to political rallies brought union thug administered beatings to a halt.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 9:15 amDavid Newton says:
What should have happened is that instead of him having to put his gun in his truck, the one person who complained and yet did not leave should have been told in no uncertain terms that if they did not shut up they would not be welcome at the premises then if they did not back down they should have been the ones inconvenienced. There is a time and place for poking your nose into other peoples’ business. That time and place is when they are doing something genuinely illegal/anti-social, it is not when they are doing something perfectly legal and you merely don’t “like” what they are doing. This case falls firmly into the latter category.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 10:09 amConstitutionalist says:
Yes, irrational. According to the published accounts, he wasn’t “carrying ... in his hand” so you’re extrapolating a non-existent condition out of fear.
Even allowing for your hypothetical case where he had his gun in-hand, I wouldn’t hit the doors immediately. I’d calmly evaluate his apparent mental state. If he looked rational, I’d advise him to holster his weapon before he panicked some good citizen. If he looked irrational, I’d look for cover and loosen a few buttons so I had easy access to my own pistol.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 10:59 amConstitutionalist says:
It’s not even a reasonable expectation or rational fear in Chicago. It’s a fear that has been fed by popular entertainment media, skewed reporting and a totalitarian local government.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 11:04 amstephenb says:
im at popeyes eating lunch and carrying a gun here in GA :)
Quote
October 2, 2009, 11:23 amUSAFTS says:
If some dude walks in HOLDING a .45, he is either reacting to a perceived threat or he is not following the law and he IS a potential threat. If the same dude is sitting quietly, with his gun holstered...he is no more a threat than anyone else in the room. “Extremely deadly weapons”?? Come on...A ball-point-pen or even a pillow can be “extremely deadly weapons” if used improperly and in a manner that is UNLAWFUL. You have a better chance of being run over by an “Extremely deadly” city bus, than you have of being shot by a law-abiding citizen with his/her legally carried handgun.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 11:39 amKBCraig says:
And please keep holding political rallies, and waving signs. Nothing is surer to result in laws against free speech.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 11:40 amRide Fast says:
[...] Open carry just got opener [...]
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:32 pmvinnie says:
I’m not worried about it. The press will quit reporting when they realize that nothing bad is happening.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 1:24 pmmojo says:
CA P.C.
Sec. 12025, 12026, 12031
Quote
October 2, 2009, 1:26 pmUSAFTS says:
1st AMENDMENT — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
2nd AMENDMENT — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
SO..
...laws against free speech = UNCONSTITUTIONAL
...laws against open carry = UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It’s just THAT simple.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 1:41 pmLyle says:
You people from Chicago and other leftist-controlled inner city crime-ridden hell holes; Seriously, get hold of yourselves. Realize that your situation is far from the norm. In most of America, you see people carrying guns, and you see guns in racks in people’s trucks, and in their homes as a matter of course. My kids participate in school-sanctioned shooting events, with other school kids.
I’ve taught gun safety classes inside the local school, with guns, a few times. No one wet their pants or freaked out and bolted for the door. I’ve been to several “school shootings” (shooting competitions– shots fired! Repeat; shots fired!) with upwards of 150 kids all armed with “extremely deadly” shotguns (Oooh! Scarrrry!) and they were all very pleasant, cordial and relaxed events. You see people carrying (and lots more others you don’t see carrying concealed) every day around here.
Some of you people’s reactions against guns are just embarrasing. Give us a break and get a freaking clue, already.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 2:26 pmJoeG says:
If I’m at the movies, and I see someone with a holstered weapon (especially if they are open carrying), I am going to feel just a bit better that should something bad happen, I’ve got potential backup in the room (aside from my wife).
Thugs carry without holsters. I can count the number of times a criminal has been caught with a holster on one hand (probably not quite that few, but damn close).
Criminals carry in a belt, or in a pocket, or stuffed in the waist of their pants. They do not use holsters so that if they have to ditch the weapon (like if they are oh, I don’t know — being chased by the police), and are then caught, they are not going to have to answer the resulting “so you just happened to have an empty holster that was designed to fit this gun we just happened to find while pursuing you?” question.
In my experience, on average in any crowd of 100 people there are going to be about 7–8 that have a firearm on their persons. I constantly spot people that have done a poor job of concealing, or that have telltale bulges and angles where they shouldn’t. On an average day out running around with the wife, I will see at least a dozen people that have a concealed firearm (and this is in California!). But that is because I am looking, most people are completely and totally oblivious.
Sir I hate to tell you this, but despite your keen powers of observation, I am quite sure that you have been in enclosed spaces with actual criminals, who were carrying actual guns that you were unaware of (they do normal people things sometimes too).
Quote
October 2, 2009, 2:38 pmLarryA says:
I only carry my concealed handgun where I don’t expect to need it. If there’s a location where I do expect to need a handgun for self-defense, I don’t go there.
All three of the cases I cite in my Texas CHL class to illustrate how someone legally carrying concealed successfully handled a deadly-force situation occurred in locations where the attack was completely unexpected; a business office, a shopping mall, and a church. The case I cite which shows what happens when firearms are banned (two dozen dead) happened in a restaurant.
Went to see Surrogates yesterday. Carried my Glock 30 concealed. (No open carry in Texas.) Then I went to church choir practice. I did get asked about concealed carry there. One of the other choir members needed to schedule a renewal class.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:52 pmWALSTRO says:
Anon sed: “If you ever stepped out of your pickup and heard a rattler next to your leg, you might understand a bit better.”
Hey folks, I’m here to tell ya that if you step out of yer pickup and see a rattler by your leg, the thing to do is MOVE IN A HURRY!! Do not, repeat, do not take the time to draw a firearm and attempt to shoot the snake or you’ll end up with a couple of fang marks in your calf!!
Quote
October 2, 2009, 7:59 pmWALSTRO says:
Vinnie sed: “I’m not worried about it. The press will quit reporting when they realize that nothing bad is happening.”
Gee Vinnie, I really do wish I could believe that!!
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:07 pmvinnie says:
Well Walstro, when they report guns at X number of rallies and nothing bad happening and the blogosphere points out that “Nothing Happened”. Then the press has to start saying (under their breath) that nothing happened. They will start to lose even more. The only defense will be that “it is NOT news”. Which will beg the question of why its been the past headlines at so many rallies.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:21 pmWALSTRO says:
Vinnie, I wish, oh how I wish, I could share your optimism over the press!!
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:23 pmChristopher J Hoffman says:
Why would anyone want to take a loaded handgun into a movie theater?
1. So they don’t have to leave it in their car where it can be stolen and used against an innocent person
2. So they can have it available for immediate use for self-defense to and from their car, as the law allows
3. Because one cannot predict the time and whereabouts of a violent attack, anymore than one can predict the time and whereabouts of a car accident, therefore wearing a seat belt at all time is prudent, as is the carrying of a defensive weapon at all times. (It would make no sense to wear your seat belt only some of the time)
4. Because he can
5. Because
Quote
October 3, 2009, 1:05 pmDiginit says:
Got some good comments here. Some not so. The thought that you may have a gun is the only thing keeping thugs out of your house at night. That psychology works even better when you have it on your side.
If someone has a phobia of guns, They watch too many movies and have no experience with firearms. Statistics show, You have a 9 out of 10 chance to be a victim of a violent crime in your lifetime. Be ready for it. Firearms are also the only thing that keeps this country free.
Quoting Admiral Yamamoto “We cannot invade America for there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass”
Support your 4th ammentment rights!
Quote
October 3, 2009, 8:11 pmGreg says:
Right, move in a hurry so you spook the snake and it attacks you. Thats the worst thing you could do. You’d be better off staying still and drawing your weapon slowly, or walking away slowly.
Quote
October 14, 2009, 4:23 am