• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Another Mass shooting at the Wal-Mart; ALMOST

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Here's a headline you won't likely see on national TV news tonite
https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=S...rist&FORM=EWRE


Said over and over again,...." how to stop a mass shooter?? "

"Umm,,,Shoot back."

I know, it's complicated right?
rolleye0011.gif


The left media doesn't want this story out.
 

Bannedjoe

Well-known member
I'm calling bullshit on this story.

It sounds like the guy was an exhibitionist trying to get some attention doing something legal.

Is it legal to carry an AR-15 in public in MO? Yes.
Is it legal to carry 100 rounds of ammo? Yes.
Is it legal to wear body armor? Yes, as long as you aren't committing a crime.

From reading the stories, I don't see anything about this asshat making a scene or making any threats, let alone a terrorist one.

He just skeerd a bunch of shoppers and someone called the police.

Is it brilliant to do something like this? Not really.
Is it against the law? No.
Was it rather stupid? Yes.
 

Bannedjoe

Well-known member
Where are the terroristic threats???
Did he wave his rifle around?
Did he point it at anyone?

Did he yell Allah Akbar?
Did he write a manifesto?
Did he threaten anyone's life?
Did he have any intention to?

From what I read, it sounded like he was just shopping, albeit armed to the teeth, which still in my book isn't illegal.
Again, it just looks a gun nut making a point and exercising his rights without a touch of common sense.
Fortunately or unfortunately, lack of common sense isn't illegal yet, or is it?

Show me he made any actual threats, and I'll recant, because I haven't read anything yet.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I'm calling bullshit on this story.

It sounds like the guy was an exhibitionist trying to get some attention doing something legal.

Is it legal to carry an AR-15 in public in MO? Yes.
Is it legal to carry 100 rounds of ammo? Yes.
Is it legal to wear body armor? Yes, as long as you aren't committing a crime.

From reading the stories, I don't see anything about this asshat making a scene or making any threats, let alone a terrorist one.

He just skeerd a bunch of shoppers and someone called the police.

Is it brilliant to do something like this? Not really.
Is it against the law? No.
Was it rather stupid? Yes.

Next time you might have enough respect for my posts to at least read the links. They explain his crimes.


It is not legal to carry an AR -15 and skeer a bunch of people. Even in MO.
Given the past weekend headlines such "exhibition" equates to shouting fire in a crowded church. And that is actually, illegal.
So is brandishing.

Who open carries two guns, an ammo box, and wears a bulletproof vest to go "shopping" at the Wal-Mart?


Perhaps he meant to skeer people, maybe just wanted attention and his name in the papers, or maybe he had more sinister plans. From the relative safety behind the keyboard, you are welcome to spoof at the story. To speculate. But given tensions today, the firefighter was right to hold the perp until the authorities could check out this situation.
His alternative was to wait until the shots were fired, somebody hurt or dead, and then been forced to take a life himself.

This was a much more harmonious outcome.
Given your approach, I'm glad it wasn't you making the tough choices at the Wal-mart today
 
Last edited:

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Where are the terroristic threats???
Did he wave his rifle around?
Did he point it at anyone?

Did he yell Allah Akbar?
Did he write a manifesto?
Did he threaten anyone's life?
Did he have any intention to?

From what I read, it sounded like he was just shopping, albeit armed to the teeth, which still in my book isn't illegal.
Again, it just looks a gun nut making a point and exercising his rights without a touch of common sense.
Fortunately or unfortunately, lack of common sense isn't illegal yet, or is it?

Show me he made any actual threats, and I'll recant, because I haven't read anything yet.


You mention common sense. IMO it is a quality that is fast disappearing!!
Mike
 

Bannedjoe

Well-known member
Next time you might have enough respect for my posts to at least read the links. They explain his crimes.


It is not legal to carry an AR -15 and skeer a bunch of people. Even in MO.
Given the past weekend headlines such "exhibition" equates to shouting fire in a crowded church. And that is actually, illegal.
So is brandishing.

Who open carries two guns, an ammo box, and wears a bulletproof vest to go "shopping" at the Wal-Mart?


Perhaps he meant to skeer people, maybe just wanted attention and his name in the papers, or maybe he had more sinister plans. From the relative safety behind the keyboard, you are welcome to spoof at the story. To speculate. But given tensions today, the firefighter was right to hold the perp until the authorities could check out this situation.
His alternative was to wait until the shots were fired, somebody hurt or dead, and then been forced to take a life himself.

This was a much more harmonious outcome.
Given your approach, I'm glad it wasn't you making the tough choices at the Wal-mart today
I did read the link, and did further research.

I'm not saying anything in your post is BS.
I'm calling BS on the guy being charged.

It is not illegal to open carry a rifle or handgun in MO.

Maybe you aren't reading my words correctly and feel attacked for some reason.

The guy was within his legal rights. He can open carry.
Should he in the manner that he did? That certainly is open to debate.
There is no law that says anything about how many rounds a person can carry around either.

Did he scare people?
Most likely.
People are scared of their own shadows these days, especially after a highly publicized few days of shootings.

Again from all accounts, and what I was able to learn about MO firearm laws, he did nothing illegal, legally speaking.

If anything, the firefighter should be charged with brandishing, attempted murder, and holding someone prisoner/hostage at gunpoint.

And again I'll say, the guy was an idiot going out into public looking like a soldier ready to fight, but on the same note, maybe HE was prepared for the next nut to show up shooting people at random?
Did that ever cross anyone's mind?

Just maybe, he was ready to defend yours, or someone else's ass should some psycho show up at that walmart.

Who's really to know?

But facing criminal charges for doing nothing illegal, and having a bunch of sheep cry wolf, is wrong as well.


In my state, I can open carry, or concealed carry without a permit.
I choose to have a permit anyway.

I quit open carry many years ago when in fact I was in a walmart, and some kid saw my pistol in a side holster and shouted mommy, that guy has a gun!!!
I saw a real potential problem at that exact second, and have never open carried in public since.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I did read the link, and did further research.

I'm not saying anything in your post is BS.
I'm calling BS on the guy being charged.

It is not illegal to open carry a rifle or handgun in MO.

Maybe you aren't reading my words correctly and feel attacked for some reason.

The guy was within his legal rights. He can open carry.
Should he in the manner that he did? That certainly is open to debate.
There is no law that says anything about how many rounds a person can carry around either.

Did he scare people?
Most likely.
People are scared of their own shadows these days, especially after a highly publicized few days of shootings.

Again from all accounts, and what I was able to learn about MO firearm laws, he did nothing illegal, legally speaking.

If anything, the firefighter should be charged with brandishing, attempted murder, and holding someone prisoner/hostage at gunpoint.

And again I'll say, the guy was an idiot going out into public looking like a soldier ready to fight, but on the same note, maybe HE was prepared for the next nut to show up shooting people at random?
Did that ever cross anyone's mind?

Just maybe, he was ready to defend yours, or someone else's ass should some psycho show up at that walmart.

Who's really to know?

But facing criminal charges for doing nothing illegal, and having a bunch of sheep cry wolf, is wrong as well.


In my state, I can open carry, or concealed carry without a permit.
I choose to have a permit anyway.

I quit open carry many years ago when in fact I was in a walmart, and some kid saw my pistol in a side holster and shouted mommy, that guy has a gun!!!
I saw a real potential problem at that exact second, and have never open carried in public since.

Sorry if I misunderstood but one thing you have to get right, and you are wrong.

One. It is legal to open carry in MO. It is not legal to brandish.
Two. The firefighter was within his rights also. This even if the perp was just being stupid but innocent. Something of which I seriously doubt.

If the perp was in fact that stupid, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a weapon. No BS there.

You are the second person today who has taken the very argument you raise. Both of who's opinions I generally respect. But in this case, no. To be a responsible gun owner one must act with some respect for the general public. Just acting within the limits of the law is not enough.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/mo-gun-laws/
I carry here in Missouri. I do not have a CCW permit. Not required here. I betting there are very few people I have encountered who were even aware. That is how it is supposed to be. That you showed yours, on purpose or not, was careless and imprudent.

It's like having a supercharged coupe that will do almost 200MPH. You don't drive it like that through the local subdivision just because a Mustang GT clears it's throat. Or to show off. BTW, I own two of them as well. And like shooting one's guns at the range, I only drive them fast on the track.

With the power to kill comes the responsibility to avoid it unless there is no other choice. It is my contention, and belief, the fire fighter made the correct choice. I believe the police did as well. I also hope the perp, guilty of terrorism or not, learns his lesson. I'm betting he loses his right to possess. Something he put at risk when he acted so thoughtless.

How many times in recent mass killings did we find out somebody knew something was wrong with the shooter and we missed it? Nobody was brave enough to step up. Didn't happen here but if that gun owner had not stepped up, it may well have been a repeat of the stupidity that continues to get people killed.
 
Last edited:

Bannedjoe

Well-known member
Sorry if I misunderstood but one thing you have to get right, and you are wrong.

One. It is legal to open carry in MO. It is not legal to brandish.
Two. The firefighter was within his rights also. This even if the perp was just being stupid but innocent. Something of which I seriously doubt.

If the perp was in fact that stupid, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a weapon. No BS there.

You are the second person today who has taken the very argument you raise. Both of who's opinions I generally respect. But in this case, no. To be a responsible gun owner one must act with some respect for the general public. Just acting within the limits of the law is not enough.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/mo-gun-laws/
I carry here in Missouri. I do not have a CCW permit. Not required here. I betting there are very few people I have encountered who were even aware. That is how it is supposed to be. That you showed yours, on purpose or not, was careless and imprudent.

It's like having a supercharged coupe that will do almost 200MPH. You don't drive it like that through the local subdivision just because a Mustang GT clears it's throat. Or to show off. BTW, I own two of them as well. And like shooting one's guns at the range, I only drive them fast on the track.

With the power to kill comes the responsibility to avoid it unless there is no other choice. It is my contention, and belief, the fire fighter made the correct choice. I believe the police did as well. I also hope the perp, guilty of terrorism or not, learns his lesson. I'm betting he loses his right to possess. Something he put at risk when he acted so thoughtless.

How many times in recent mass killings did we find out somebody knew something was wrong with the shooter and we missed it? Nobody was brave enough to step up. Didn't happen here but if that gun owner had not stepped up, it may well have been a repeat of the stupidity that continues to get people killed.

Please explain the difference in carrying a rifle slung on your shoulder, and brandishing.
As well, as a sidearm on your belt and brandishing.

AS far as I recall, brandishing is opening your jacket to someone, showing you have a weapon and that you mean business.
Or waving it in someone's face as a threat where maybe no threat is present.

And one more thing, believe it or don't, where I live is very rural, just about everyone I know carries a sidearm very visible and readily accessible, men and women alike.
(snakes and shit don't ya know)

And lastly, I still don't see any proof that he made any threats, I'm still waiting on that one.
Thank you.
 
Last edited:

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Please explain the difference in carrying a rifle slung on your shoulder, and brandishing.
As well, as a sidearm on your belt and brandishing.

AS far as I recall, brandishing is opening your jacket to someone, showing you have a weapon and that you mean business.
Or waving it in someone's face as a threat where maybe no threat is present.

And one more thing, believe it or don't, where I live is very rural, just about everyone I know carries a sidearm very visible and readily accessible, men and women alike.
(snakes and shit don't ya know)

And lastly, I still don't see any proof that he made any threats, I'm still waiting on that one.
Thank you.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-...-was-testing-2nd-amendment-rights-prosecutors


I don't have to explain. Read the link, beyond the title.
 

road squawker

Active member
GOLD Site Supporter
I read the linked info, repeatedly,..................... This guy IS a dumazz, but,.................... he will sue the firefighter, the police, the DA,Walmart, ect.

and he will win the suit

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
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. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."
ARTICLE 1, § 23
 
Last edited:

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
This is the thing that has always concerned me about concealed carry. I realize this is not a CCW issue but still.

I am at a movie theater and reach for my wallet to pay for the tub of popcorn. A liberal wacky from Massachusetts sees my pistol and screams in a crowded theater , MY GOD, THE MAN HAS A GUN!!! Women scream, people start scattering, 911 is called. A security guard twice as big as me and half my age takes me down before I can say anything in my defense.

Remember, constitutional carry is great, but does not give you a piece of paper to wave in someones face.

Where does it go from there before I am able to stand up, brush myself off and go watch what is left of the movie.

Moral of the story. There is a growing disparity in this country between the rights we have and rights we are permitted to exercise. The liberals are working feverishly to make that divide grow by the day. Welcome to America 2019

There is NO sign on the door of the movie theater either that bans guns in any form concealed or not, but I would never carry an AR with me to go watch Die Hard 5.

Maybe this guy did not break any law other than the law of common sense. This is not the wild west anymore, Toto.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I read the linked info, repeatedly,..................... This guy IS a dumazz, but,.................... he will sue the firefighter, the police, the DA,Walmart, ect.

and he will win the suit

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
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. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."
ARTICLE 1, § 23

Nothing here makes the perp's case.

He will sue? Sure. That's what he is all about.

But win, depends on the court. And if the NRA supports his stupidity. Not likely in Missouri.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
By his own admission, he was showing his weapons and donning his bulletproof vest to test people's reactions. Intentional provocation and showoff weapon without cause as indicated in the Constitution brief provided.

People do not generally wear a bullet proof vest to go shopping, or hunting. Nor do they do selfie films to record showing their weapons and people's reactions.

Guns are serious items. So is the constitutional guarantee of our implicit rights to have them. The power of neither should ever be disrespected.
 

Bamby

New member
By his own admission, he was showing his weapons and donning his bulletproof vest to test people's reactions. Intentional provocation and showoff weapon without cause as indicated in the Constitution brief provided.

The above could be viewed as a terrorist threat making it a first degree class D felony.

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

Title 38. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders

Chapter 574. Offenses Against Public Order

§ 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.

Good read on topic here: Understanding Legalities of Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event

Come on this guy is a dimwit and deserves whatever is thrown at him..
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case
Posted by Andrew Branca Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:00pm

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...or-event-is-not-a-second-amendment-case/#more

The Second Amendment is not a waiver against being held responsible for otherwise criminal conduct.

I’ve received a lot of requests to comment on the recent arrest of a man who walked into a Springfield, MO Walmart carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and packing over 100 rounds of ammunition (all that according to news reports, of course). The man was held by gunpoint by another patron of the store, an off-duty firefighter, and turned over to responding Springfield police a few minutes later.

The most common question sent my way is whether the patron who held the rifle-armed man at gunpoint did so unlawfully—what was the patron’s legal justification for threatening deadly force against the rifle-armed man, given that purportedly there’s no specific Missouri law against shopping at Walmart while armed with a rifle, wearing body armor, and armed with lots of ammo?

Before we get to that, a few more relevant factual details.

That man with the rifle has been identified by Springfield police as 20-year-old Dmitriy N. Andreychenko (insert Russian interference comments here), and he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.

This is a class D felony under Missouri law, good for seven years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Naturally, conviction on this (or any other) felony charge would strip Mr. Andreychenko of his gun rights forever.

The full text of §574.115 can be viewed at the link above, but the relevant portion in this instance is almost certainly the following:

§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.

Was Firefighter’s Threat of Deadly Force Unlawful?

In order to understand how the law is likely to apply in this case, it’s also important to understand that for legal purposes the conduct of each of the main characters involved—Andreychenko on the one hand and the firefighter on the other—are not dependent upon each other. They are, of course, related to each other—presumably, the firefighter would not have taken Andreychenko at gunpoint but for Andreychenko’s conduct in showing up to Walmart as he did—but they are not controlling on each other.

What I mean by that is this: whether the firefighter’s conduct was lawful (or unlawful) is not a function of whether Andreychenko’s conduct was lawful (or unlawful). It is not necessary that Andreychenko was committing any crime whatever in order for the firefighter taking him at gunpoint to do so lawfully.

So anyone arguing that the firefighter taking Andreychenko at gunpoint must have been unlawful because Andreychenko was “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights” is rather missing the point. The firefighter pointing a gun at Andreychenko could well be perfectly lawful even if it’s true that Andreychenko was committing no crime at all.

Reasonable Perception, Not Actual Threat, Controls

Why? Because what determines the legality of the firefighter’s threat of force is his reasonable perception of the circumstances. That is, if the firefighter reasonably perceived that Andreychenko presented an imminent threat of deadly force harm to innocents, taking him at gunpoint to neutralize that threat would be perfectly lawful. And that’s true regardless of whether Andreychenko actually presented, or intended to present, such a threat.

Further, it doesn’t matter what you, gentle reader, or I think of the reasonableness of the firefighter’s perception of Andreychenko. None of us will be the ultimate deciders of the reasonableness of the firefighter’s perception, and thus of the lawfulness of the fire fighter’s conduct.

Ultimately, the only opinion on this that matters is that of a prospective jury, the body to whom the prosecutor must sell a narrative of guilt and, in the interim, that of the prosecutor who is gauging how a jury is likely to perceive these facts.

Is it likely that a jury—fully aware that just days prior to this Missouri event a mass shooter with a rifle had walked into a Walmart in Texas and murdered a bunch of people in a mass attack—would perceive as wildly unreasonable the firefighter’s perception that Andreychenko armed with a rifle and body armor and more than a hundred rounds of ammunition while walking into a Walmart in Missouri was an imminent deadly force threat?

Especially when the fire fighter’s perception was shared by other witnesses of Andreychenko’s conduct? Especially when the consequence of the firefighter’s actions was not the death of Andreychenko, but merely holding Andreychenko at gunpoint for approximately three minutes until police arrived to take over the matter?

When balancing the dangers posed by holding Andreychenko at gunpoint for perhaps three minutes until police arrived, on the one hand, and the concern that Andreychenko could have been a copycat mass murderer, on the other hand, how would you expect a jury to weigh those two risks?

Remember, it matters not at all that the firefighter’s perception of Andreychenk was actually correct. It only matters if it was reasonable under the circumstances.

Were I a prosecutor contemplating charging that firefighter with having committed an unlawful threat of force against Andreychenko, aware of the defense argument just described that would be raised against any such charge, as well as the likely political perception of bringing such a charge under the current circumstances, the decision to not do so would be an easy one.

Second Amendment Does Not Excuse Unlawful Conduct

In addition, the fact that Andreychenko may have caused such a reasonable perception of an imminent deadly force threat while carrying a firearm does not excuse that conduct, if the conduct is otherwise unlawful. The Second Amendment is not a waiver against being held responsible for otherwise criminal conduct.

Robbing a bank is not lawful just because the robber used a gun and was “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights.” Similarly, committing a terroristic threat is not lawful just because the person doing so is armed with a rifle and claiming to be “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights.”

It may be helpful to do a thought experiment in which we strip guns out of the picture entirely. If a man had walked into a Texas Walmart carrying cans labeled “fertilizer” and “diesel fuel,” combined the two in the middle of the floor, and ignited the combination to blow up the building and kill lots of people, and then a few days later a similarly equipped man had walked into a Missouri Walmart, would it be wildly unreasonable for observers to reasonably perceive a similar outcome?

Even in the absence of a specific law against carrying fertilizer and diesel fuel into a store? Even in the absence of the second man having any actual intent to blow the second store up?

More succinctly: This Missouri Walmart case is not a “gun rights” matter, and anyone who thinks it is a “gun rights” simply hasn’t thought the matter through.

Assessing the Criminality of Andreychenko’s Conduct

What about the criminal charge of terroristic threatening brought against Andreychenko? Is it a reasonable charge under the circumstances? Is it likely he could be convicted of this charge?

I’ve heard some argue that there’s “no evidence” that Andreychenko intended to harm anyone, that he was “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights,” and that for all we know his intent was perfectly lawful. OK, let’s take a look at that.

For discussion purposes, I’ll distill the charge against Andreychenko as: “with the purpose of frightening ten or more people [he] knowingly caused a false belief or fear that . . . a condition exists involving danger to life.”

But how, you might wonder, are we supposed to know what Andreychenko’s “purpose” was, absent him confessing that intent? After all, we don’t have a brain scanning machine that can definitively tell us his intent in walking into that Walmart carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and carrying some 100 rounds of ammunition. Doesn’t that mean there’s “reasonable doubt” that he intended to commit the crime of terroristic threatening?

Well, no. While it’s true that we don’t have a brain scanning machine to apply to Andreychenko, it’s also true that we’ve never had a brain scanning machine to apply to any criminal defendant, and yet people get convicted all the time based on their criminal intent.

And how do we determine their criminal intent absent such a brain scanning machine, at least in the absence of their own confession of their intent? We make reasonable inferences from their conduct and the circumstances. Ultimately, of course, it is a jury making that reasonable inference.

Was Andreychenko’s intent in carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and having 100 rounds of ammo on his person to “go shopping at Walmart?” That seems unlikely, given that millions upon millions of people shop at Walmart, without feeling the need to bring a rifle, body armor, and ammunition.

Was Andreychenko’s intent in carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and having 100 rounds of ammo on his person to “exercise his Second Amendment rights?” Really? There are over a 100 million gun owners in America, including Second Amendment absolutists like myself who believe all pre-emptive gun laws applied to law-abiding, mentally-sound American citizens to be facially unconstitutional, and who exercise our Second Amendment rights every single day, and yet have never felt the need to carry a rifle into a Walmart while wearing body armor.

But Andrew, I can hear people saying, sure, carrying a rifle into Walmart while wearing body armor may be unusual, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

I would suggest it does if such conduct is reasonably foreseeable to “cause a fear that a condition exists involving danger to life,” the feared condition being a copycat rifle-armed mass murdered in a Walmart, mere days after such an event having actually occurred, which is precisely why society creates laws such as Missouri’s terroristic threatening statute.

Remember, it doesn’t matter what Andreychenko’s intent actually was, it only matters what a jury is likely to infer that Andreychenko’s intent was.

There are places in which gearing up with a rifle and body armor and ammunition would not be reasonably expected to cause a fear of immediate danger to life. A military or police exercise. A competitive rifle match. A shooting range. One’s own home. In the presence of an active threat or natural disaster against which a rifle and body armor and plenty of ammunition would be a rational and prudent defensive action.

While shopping at Walmart? Not so much.

And if there does not appear to be a reasonable basis for gearing up with a rifle, body armor, and ammunition, it should not be surprising if observers perceive that there may be an unreasonable basis for doing so, an unlawful basis, a life-threatening basis—and that’s especially the case if a mass shooting under similar circumstances and at great loss to innocent life has just occurred.

Second Amendment: With “Friends” Like This …

Even if we were to give Andreychenko the benefit of the doubt and assume that his intent in “shopping” at Walmart armed with a rifle and wearing body armor, days after a mass shooting at another Walmart under similar circumstances, was 100% well-intentioned, defending this conduct on Second Amendment grounds is politically foolish, and catastrophically so.

Just because some conduct is lawful doesn’t mean it’s smart, and if one’s self-claimed mission is support of the Second Amendment, exercising that right in such a way that your conduct can be reasonably be expected to scare the heck out of normal people out in public—each of whom has exactly the same vote that you have—is politically idiotic.

I’ve written about this at length before, particularly with respect to the folks who used to (maybe still do?) gather at Starbucks while geared up with long guns, such as in this post from more than five years ago: Op-Ed: “Open Carry” Activists Score Yet Another Own Goal (5/21/14)

In short, anyone who is exercising their Second Amendment rights on the basis of MUAH RAHTS!!!” and in such a way that the actual and reasonably foreseeable effect is to undermine generalized political support for the Second Amendment is no genuine friend of the Second Amendment. They are, rather, engaged in self-serving, attention-grabbing behavior that is detrimental to the Second Amendment. They are no ally of the Second Amendment, and no friend of mine.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Although the Tenth Amendment is explicitly intended to constrain the Federal government, in favor of the States, in our modern society it is effectively a dead Amendment, with essentially no political or legal effect whatever. Was the Tenth Amendment repealed? Nope. It’s still on the books. It is simply impotent, for the very practical reason that today’s society has chosen for it to be impotent.

The same precise fate awaits the Second Amendment if it suffers a comparable loss in generalized political support. I urge all true Second Amendment supporters to conduct themselves in a manner that increases, rather than decreases, generalized political support for our gun rights.

My advice is that you exercise your Second Amendment rights responsibly, like adults who both demand that right and accept the responsibilities that come with it, rather than as self-serving adult-children who want rights without responsibility. Because if the second path is chosen, the others in society will strip that right away, without hesitation.

–Andrew

NEW! Law of Self Defense “Defense of Property” Course

For those of you interested in this kind of use-of-force legal content, as well as insight and analysis into how such laws are actually applied by the criminal justice system, I’d like to let you know that Law of Self Defense (that’s me) has just launched our newest instruction course on “Defense of Property.”

In this course we cover the practical legal privileges and constraints for the use of force in defense of your home, your business, your vehicle, your pets, and more, with all the legalese translated into plain English, and while providing the most relevant defense of property law of all 50 states.

Even better, during this launch (only through Monday, August 12!), we’re offering this course at half the usual price (so, less than $50), AND we’re adding as a free bonus of your choice of any of our State-specific self-defense law courses (usually $100 by itself).

You can learn more about our new “Defense of Property” course, and take advantage of this launch sale (but only through Monday!), by clicking here: Law of Self Defense “Defense of Property” Course.

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
www.lawofselfdefense.com


About: Andrew Branca

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997, and is currently in the process of completing the fully revised and updated second edition, which you can preorder now at lawofselfdefense.com. He began his competitive shooting activities as a youth in smallbore rifle, and today is a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a Life Member and Master-class competitor in multiple classifications in the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA). Andrew has for many years been an NRA-certified firearms instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, and has previously served as an Adjunct Instructor on the Law of Self Defense at the SigSauer Academy in Epping, NH. He holds or has held concealed carry permits for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Virginia, and other states.
 

m1west

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Next time you might have enough respect for my posts to at least read the links. They explain his crimes.


It is not legal to carry an AR -15 and skeer a bunch of people. Even in MO.
Given the past weekend headlines such "exhibition" equates to shouting fire in a crowded church. And that is actually, illegal.
So is brandishing.

Who open carries two guns, an ammo box, and wears a bulletproof vest to go "shopping" at the Wal-Mart?


Perhaps he meant to skeer people, maybe just wanted attention and his name in the papers, or maybe he had more sinister plans. From the relative safety behind the keyboard, you are welcome to spoof at the story. To speculate. But given tensions today, the firefighter was right to hold the perp until the authorities could check out this situation.
His alternative was to wait until the shots were fired, somebody hurt or dead, and then been forced to take a life himself.

This was a much more harmonious outcome.
Given your approach, I'm glad it wasn't you making the tough choices at the Wal-mart today

I read all 3 articles he never verbally threatened anyone or pointed a gun at anyone. Was it stupid to a degree you can only dream about, Could he have been shot by a customer with a gun or LEO when they rolled up, most positively . But I'm not too sure he will go down for it and the Fireman could be facing false imprisonment and other charges for his roll. Very stupid thing to do but when the smoke clears I don't think he will be convicted. Walmart sold most of the stuff he had with him a couple of years ago he could have been simply returning it. Marty
 
Top