The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.
Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.
The store manager at the Neighborhood Market pulled a fire alarm, urging people to escape the store.
Police say the man then made his way out an emergency exit where a firefighter held the man at gunpoint. At that moment Springfield Police arrived on scene and detained the man.
The Springfield Police Department could not confirm the nature of statements said by the man to those inside of the Walmart, but they do confirm that the man had loaded weapons, and over one hundred rounds of ammunition
Unless I am mistaken, none of that is actually illegal in Missouri. Which is the problem.
It depends on if doing it wearing fatigues and body arm, immediately after a mass shooting, also in a walmart is considered threatening. It illegal to open carry in a threatening manner. Two weeks ago, he's white;it's fine. This week...? I'd need to read up on the jurisprudence of threatening, but if "with the intent to terrorize and cause fear." is anything close it'd run afoul of it. If it is pointing the gun at people]... that's normally a specific crime.
Nothing suggested he brandished them, only wore them. Which is why open carry in public, especially without even needing a damn license, should not be legal outside of hunting seasons in DNR approved locations.
The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.
Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.
The store manager at the Neighborhood Market pulled a fire alarm, urging people to escape the store.
Police say the man then made his way out an emergency exit where a firefighter held the man at gunpoint. At that moment Springfield Police arrived on scene and detained the man.
The Springfield Police Department could not confirm the nature of statements said by the man to those inside of the Walmart, but they do confirm that the man had loaded weapons, and over one hundred rounds of ammunition
Unless I am mistaken, none of that is actually illegal in Missouri. Which is the problem.
It depends on if doing it wearing fatigues and body arm, immediately after a mass shooting, also in a walmart is considered threatening. It illegal to open carry in a threatening manner. Two weeks ago, he's white;it's fine. This week...? I'd need to read up on the jurisprudence of threatening, but if "with the intent to terrorize and cause fear." is anything close it'd run afoul of it. If it is pointing the gun at people]... that's normally a specific crime.
Nothing suggested he brandished them, only wore them. Which is why open carry in public, especially without even needing a damn license, should not be legal outside of hunting seasons in DNR approved locations.
Right, unless going out and carrying semi automatic rifles in dress, at a location, and at a time all specifically chosen to cause fear is carrying them in a threatening way, he hasn't committed a crime.
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.
Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.
The store manager at the Neighborhood Market pulled a fire alarm, urging people to escape the store.
Police say the man then made his way out an emergency exit where a firefighter held the man at gunpoint. At that moment Springfield Police arrived on scene and detained the man.
The Springfield Police Department could not confirm the nature of statements said by the man to those inside of the Walmart, but they do confirm that the man had loaded weapons, and over one hundred rounds of ammunition
Unless I am mistaken, none of that is actually illegal in Missouri. Which is the problem.
It depends on if doing it wearing fatigues and body arm, immediately after a mass shooting, also in a walmart is considered threatening. It illegal to open carry in a threatening manner. Two weeks ago, he's white;it's fine. This week...? I'd need to read up on the jurisprudence of threatening, but if "with the intent to terrorize and cause fear." is anything close it'd run afoul of it. If it is pointing the gun at people]... that's normally a specific crime.
Nothing suggested he brandished them, only wore them. Which is why open carry in public, especially without even needing a damn license, should not be legal outside of hunting seasons in DNR approved locations.
Right, unless going out and carrying semi automatic rifles in dress, at a location, and at a time all specifically chosen to cause fear is carrying them in a threatening way, he hasn't committed a crime.
So far as I can tell, "in a threatening manner" only means brandishing, which slung on your back or in a holster does not rise to.
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
While I don't fault their reaction, was what that guy did actually illegal?
And would what the fireman did be if the previous action was legal?
This is where my mind went as well. Every so often, a group of people will "educate people on the right to open carry" by grabbing scary looking rifles and going shopping or something, which is something that probably should be illegal, but distinguishing between that and going out hunting is a bit tricky.
Maybe I'm just a naive Canadian, but my immediate assumption is that "open carry" doesn't mean "loaded and armoured for war".
And it probably does, 'cause 'murica, but fuck me, there is a difference between "yeah, I have my coyote pistol on me" and "I am ready to engage in a gunfight like the one in HEAT (or the one that happened in real life that HEAT seemed to be very much based on).
Yeah yeah, people can leap from the woodwork to say that nuh uh, this is totes mcgoats cool.
I think it's super fucked up. Want to dress in full tactical with non-functioning weapons? Go to Comic Con. Want to dress like you belong on SWAT? Go join SWAT. There is a time and a place for most things, and this was neither. If someone armed and armoured were filming themselves, I'm finding a fucking exit. Christchurch is being cited by some of these shitheels, ffs.
Edit: to be clear, even if they have done nothing illegal, this isn't just trolling. It's the "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..." of terrorism. That kind of action is about sitting just across the line, if it doesn't end up outright being a copycat who lost their nerve (and will claim 'it's all just a joke, bro' as a legal defense, presumably).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
Section 21.750 3.(2) basically says that if a person is carrying a valid permit and produces it on demand, and they're not doing criminal activity, they can open carry a firearm even if local laws say people generally can't open carry in any of the scenarios described in sections 571.010-571.070. It's basically a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
There doesn't seem to be any actual state law on the books permitting or prohibiting open carry..?
There's just a state law that people (some people?) with concealed weapons permits, can briefly expose their weapons without running into local laws that prohibit open carry, unless they are threatening someone.
So... you can just be an angry threatening asshole with a gun in jurisdictions where they haven't made specific laws about it.
I was wrong? I had kinda figured they had an open carry law with a black panther exception, instead it is open carry with an exemption to override local laws so people with CC permits can flash their gun to people, as long as they aren't being threatening about it.
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
There doesn't seem to be any actual state law on the books permitting or prohibiting open carry..?
There's just a state law that people (some people?) with concealed weapons permits, can briefly expose their weapons without running into local laws that prohibit open carry, unless they are threatening someone.
So... you can just be an angry threatening asshole with a gun in jurisdictions where they haven't made specific laws about it?
More like local governments can make laws prohibiting open carry, but as long as a person follows steps (2)(a) through (2)(c), their right to open carry overrules these local laws. Even before that, local laws that restrict open carry must also comply with the exceptions set in sections 571.010 through 571.070, 252.243, and 563.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
There doesn't seem to be any actual state law on the books permitting or prohibiting open carry..?
There's just a state law that people (some people?) with concealed weapons permits, can briefly expose their weapons without running into local laws that prohibit open carry, unless they are threatening someone.
So... you can just be an angry threatening asshole with a gun in jurisdictions where they haven't made specific laws about it?
More like local governments can make laws prohibiting open carry, but as long as a person follows steps (2)(a) through (2)(c), their right to open carry overrules these local laws. Even before that, local laws that restrict open carry must also comply with the exceptions set in sections 571.010 through 571.070, 252.243, and 563.
so, this is listing things that are just illegal, regardless of local carry laws
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
Wikipedia is right, but their citation points to the wrong chunk of law for the bit that maybe makes this illegal... or I'm bad at the internet or something.
It's the "absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity" that could be used against him, actually. Because anyone reasonable would know that what he did would expect another attack occurring.
I would argue that openly carrying weapons while wearing tactical armor is in and of itself threatening.
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
571.037. Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
There doesn't seem to be any actual state law on the books permitting or prohibiting open carry..?
There's just a state law that people (some people?) with concealed weapons permits, can briefly expose their weapons without running into local laws that prohibit open carry, unless they are threatening someone.
So... you can just be an angry threatening asshole with a gun in jurisdictions where they haven't made specific laws about it?
More like local governments can make laws prohibiting open carry, but as long as a person follows steps (2)(a) through (2)(c), their right to open carry overrules these local laws. Even before that, local laws that restrict open carry must also comply with the exceptions set in sections 571.010 through 571.070, 252.243, and 563.
so, this is listing things that are just illegal, regardless of local carry laws
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
Wikipedia is right, but their citation points to the wrong chunk of law for the bit that maybe makes this illegal... or I'm bad at the internet or something.
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, ---> everything in the paragraph that comes after this doesn't count when subdivision (2) counts
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following: ---> as long as the criteria in subdivision (2) are met, you can open carry regardless of what the laws are and regardless of what 571.010-571.070 are. It's a really badly written law that makes a lot of the previous language pointless without fixing it.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
From the look of things, he was just being a complete idiot and a troll. From the wearing tactical gear and strolling in while recording, everything has "for the memes" attached to it.
It also resembles what mass shooters have been doing. The christchurch shooter filmed it.
I am convinced from the behaviour this is a meme or joke. The plan was probably to buy the weapons from wal-mart while wearing that get up.
The "joke" was that he knew that this would cause people to panic. It's not funny or clever and the person is a piece of shit for doing it.
I am pretty sure you'll find this was most likely a political stunt designed to elicit exactly the kind of reaction he got. Has there been any further update on it?
Edit: What I'm saying is, prepare for him to be some kind of left-wing activist/comedian trying to make a point in a stupid way.
I mean, it's a law that's deliberately meant to say "fuck you" to any attempts at passing any sort of gun-control laws.
Yeah, it's the product of legislation a couple sessions ago that was pretty much explicitly trolling the libs because the Republicans had supermajority support. IIRC it also eliminated the need for a permit/license to lawfully concealed carry. You could still get one, but it is no longer necessary. Along with all the local preemption to tell St Louis to piss up a rope.
Speaking of laws, did you know that the gun used in the Dayton shooting was, legally speaking, a pistol?
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
Speaking of laws, did you know that the gun used in the Dayton shooting was, legally speaking, a pistol?
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
There was a chunk of time where it was technically legal to have a wrist brace that would work as a kinda crap shoulder stock, but was illegal to use as a shoulder stock, because then the gun is a short barrled rifle that needs a tax stamp.
Though, you can just buy 30 round Glock magazines, so... shrug.
You can legally buy all the parts to make a "pistol" into essentially a rifle, and it's still technically "legal" because the only thing considered a "firearm" is one fucking part.
That's the infuriating thing. I want to say that he's flaunted the law in order to make a weapon that's illegal to posses using entirely legal means, but that isn't even correct, because it's all still legal!
Fuck incrementalization! Fuck everything! We need comprehensive reform to our gun laws, from the ground up, because the whole fucking thing is rotten to the core, deliberately so. We cannot have any meaningful legislation working within the current strictures constructed, because it's been designed to hamper any attempts at useful and meaningful restrictions!
Mr. Trump praised the medical officials treating the victims, telling them "they're talking about you all over the world." He then pivoted to boasting about the attendance at his February rally and mocking the relatively small size of the counter-rally held by O'Rourke.
"I was here three months ago," Mr. Trump said. "That place was packed ... That was some crowd. And we had twice the number outside. And then you had this crazy Beto. Beto had like 400 people in a parking lot, they said his crowd was wonderful."
Members of the press were not permitted to visit the hospital with Mr. Trump due to concerns from the administration about making the visit seem like a "photo op."
They absolutely knew he as going to make an ass of himself.
+6
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
The 'didn't want to make this a photo op' thing is kinda belied by how they immediately put out campaign videos of the visit.
The 'didn't want to make this a photo op' thing is kinda belied by how they immediately put out campaign videos of the visit.
Yeah it was more they didn't want the press to put out uncut video. But they have been literally campaigning on these visits, and El Paso where his rhetoric loaded that idiot up its sickening.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
White House officials blocked reporters and their cameras from entering the two hospitals during his visits to Ohio and Texas this week, a move they said was out of respect for the patients' privacy. But according to one person familiar with the President's reaction, the President lashed out at his staff for keeping the cameras away from him, complaining that he wasn't receiving enough credit. Aides had feared a moment like the one that is now going viral — where the President appears to focus on himself in front of those still recovering from a tragedy.
Trump associates the city of El Paso with his first political rally of 2019, where he made his case for a border wall and feuded with Beto O'Rourke, who would soon announce he was running for president and held a counterprotest in a park nearby. Trump's campaign still owes the city of El Paso more than $500,000 in police and public safety fees from that visit.
While at least two top staffers publicly defended the President's trip — with one longtime aide claiming he was treated like "a rock star" at the Dayton, Ohio, hospital — multiple staffers agreed behind the scenes that it wasn't successful from the administration's viewpoint. They conceded Trump spent too much time lashing out at local officials, who Trump criticized after they praised his interactions with patients but criticized his stance on guns.
Trump was also unhappy with the visit. He fumed about the coverage on the long flight back to Washington, one person said, though he remained positive in public.
Why bother even trying to prevent something guaranteed to happen?
+3
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Speaking of laws, did you know that the gun used in the Dayton shooting was, legally speaking, a pistol?
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
This is part of the reason why definitions matter.
Like, earlier in this thread, anyone who tried to clarify what parts were what were universally derided as trying to muddy the issue. I didn't step in because it's clear that wanting clarity was not or is not important.
But when people use casual definitions in laws, this sort of shit is what you end up with. Like, in Canada, the ban on assault rifles is very specific - and in some cases, completely fucking useless.
The things that make a gun look scary are not necessarily the things that make it an effective weapon for mass murder. Honestly, the only things you need to restrict to hamper these assholes is semi-auto rifles and magazine sizes. Everything else is window dressing. But since that's not important, and people don't care about what these things are, bans on useless bullshit will go through while the things that would actually make a difference get ignored.
Also, there is a very good reason why the 'firearm' is only one part - the receiver. Because the rest of it is just a block of wood and a metal tube. How do you restrict barrels without either being a useless restriction, or restricting things that are not part of a gun? How do you restrict stocks without the same problems?
As long as there isn't an all out ban, these are important questions that askers are often accused of nefarious purpose. But these questions matter.
One one hand, what this dude did was monumentally stupid. Wether he was trolling or got cold feet or not. He almost got himself killed, incited a panic, and pulled valuable first responder resources from potential real emergencies.
On the other hand, from what I’ve read on MO laws, what he did doesn’t seem to be illegal and anyone can do it again until the laws change, which is part of the fucking problem.
Most generous scenario, he tried to make a point on how easy it is to mass shoot without actually killing anyone or technically breaking any laws, but did it in the most asinine way possible that almost killed himself and put others in danger.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
But according to one person familiar with the President's reaction, the President lashed out at his staff for keeping the cameras away from him, complaining that he wasn't receiving enough credit.
Credit...for what, exactly? Other than creating the climate that precipitated at least one of these shootings, what was his role? Pushing for benefits for the victims? Pushing for new restrictions to prevent future incidents? Did he show up in Marine One and take down the shooter himself with a vest and a pistol? Help lead victims to cover? Perform emergency surgery saving those that could be saved?
Far as I can tell only one of the above is anything he should be getting credit for. Though, to be fair, agree he’s not getting quite enough of it.
I'm not so sure the "scary" look does not matter. These massacres are all tied up with a crisis of masculinity, and if the guns looked like a "block of wood with a metal tube" it wouldn't trigger the "reclaim your masculinity at gunpoint" neurosis a lot of the shooters have.
Speaking of laws, did you know that the gun used in the Dayton shooting was, legally speaking, a pistol?
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
This is part of the reason why definitions matter.
Like, earlier in this thread, anyone who tried to clarify what parts were what were universally derided as trying to muddy the issue. I didn't step in because it's clear that wanting clarity was not or is not important.
But when people use casual definitions in laws, this sort of shit is what you end up with. Like, in Canada, the ban on assault rifles is very specific - and in some cases, completely fucking useless.
The things that make a gun look scary are not necessarily the things that make it an effective weapon for mass murder. Honestly, the only things you need to restrict to hamper these assholes is semi-auto rifles and magazine sizes. Everything else is window dressing. But since that's not important, and people don't care about what these things are, bans on useless bullshit will go through while the things that would actually make a difference get ignored.
Also, there is a very good reason why the 'firearm' is only one part - the receiver. Because the rest of it is just a block of wood and a metal tube. How do you restrict barrels without either being a useless restriction, or restricting things that are not part of a gun? How do you restrict stocks without the same problems?
As long as there isn't an all out ban, these are important questions that askers are often accused of nefarious purpose. But these questions matter.
Clarity is important when writing laws, sure.
But we don't have to speak in legalese when having discussions here on the forum.
When we say "assault weapons should be banned," a reasonable person should understand that means not just literally assault rifles, but also "assault-style" weapons. Not just a complete, assembled weapon, but also the parts that, when put together, allow a "pistol" to operate like an assault weapon.
If a law is crafted to allow all of these loopholes, it's not the average person's fault for not understanding the technical terms to request exact specifications of things. I would place the blame at the feet of those who do understand the specific technicalities, but either choose not to speak up about it, or use their knowledge to deliberately ensure loopholes exist.
Posts
Nothing suggested he brandished them, only wore them. Which is why open carry in public, especially without even needing a damn license, should not be legal outside of hunting seasons in DNR approved locations.
Right, unless going out and carrying semi automatic rifles in dress, at a location, and at a time all specifically chosen to cause fear is carrying them in a threatening way, he hasn't committed a crime.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I would argue openly carrying a rifle is inherently threatening full stop, but it is legally not considered to be so as that is mentioned in the statute explicitly allowing it.
So far as I can tell, "in a threatening manner" only means brandishing, which slung on your back or in a holster does not rise to.
Is it? This is what Missouri state law has to say about open carry:
Ah, sorry, that was effective law 28 Aug 2013.
Here's a bit from *21.750, which became effective law 10-10-14 after a veto override. The section is all about re-writing the books (literally) on the state's gun laws.
So let's see what it says about open carry:
IANAL so some of the wording on this is confusing but it seems to me that you can have 571.037 still be on your books as a local law?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe I'm just a naive Canadian, but my immediate assumption is that "open carry" doesn't mean "loaded and armoured for war".
And it probably does, 'cause 'murica, but fuck me, there is a difference between "yeah, I have my coyote pistol on me" and "I am ready to engage in a gunfight like the one in HEAT (or the one that happened in real life that HEAT seemed to be very much based on).
Yeah yeah, people can leap from the woodwork to say that nuh uh, this is totes mcgoats cool.
I think it's super fucked up. Want to dress in full tactical with non-functioning weapons? Go to Comic Con. Want to dress like you belong on SWAT? Go join SWAT. There is a time and a place for most things, and this was neither. If someone armed and armoured were filming themselves, I'm finding a fucking exit. Christchurch is being cited by some of these shitheels, ffs.
Edit: to be clear, even if they have done nothing illegal, this isn't just trolling. It's the "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..." of terrorism. That kind of action is about sitting just across the line, if it doesn't end up outright being a copycat who lost their nerve (and will claim 'it's all just a joke, bro' as a legal defense, presumably).
Section 21.750 3.(2) basically says that if a person is carrying a valid permit and produces it on demand, and they're not doing criminal activity, they can open carry a firearm even if local laws say people generally can't open carry in any of the scenarios described in sections 571.010-571.070. It's basically a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There doesn't seem to be any actual state law on the books permitting or prohibiting open carry..?
There's just a state law that people (some people?) with concealed weapons permits, can briefly expose their weapons without running into local laws that prohibit open carry, unless they are threatening someone.
So... you can just be an angry threatening asshole with a gun in jurisdictions where they haven't made specific laws about it.
I was wrong? I had kinda figured they had an open carry law with a black panther exception, instead it is open carry with an exemption to override local laws so people with CC permits can flash their gun to people, as long as they aren't being threatening about it.
More like local governments can make laws prohibiting open carry, but as long as a person follows steps (2)(a) through (2)(c), their right to open carry overrules these local laws. Even before that, local laws that restrict open carry must also comply with the exceptions set in sections 571.010 through 571.070, 252.243, and 563.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
right so, the angry or threatening language is just from 571.030: Unlawful use of weapons, section 4,
https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t38/5710000030.html
so, this is listing things that are just illegal, regardless of local carry laws
Wikipedia is right, but their citation points to the wrong chunk of law for the bit that maybe makes this illegal... or I'm bad at the internet or something.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, ---> everything in the paragraph that comes after this doesn't count when subdivision (2) counts
(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following: ---> as long as the criteria in subdivision (2) are met, you can open carry regardless of what the laws are and regardless of what 571.010-571.070 are. It's a really badly written law that makes a lot of the previous language pointless without fixing it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I am pretty sure you'll find this was most likely a political stunt designed to elicit exactly the kind of reaction he got. Has there been any further update on it?
Edit: What I'm saying is, prepare for him to be some kind of left-wing activist/comedian trying to make a point in a stupid way.
Yeah, it's the product of legislation a couple sessions ago that was pretty much explicitly trolling the libs because the Republicans had supermajority support. IIRC it also eliminated the need for a permit/license to lawfully concealed carry. You could still get one, but it is no longer necessary. Along with all the local preemption to tell St Louis to piss up a rope.
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There was a chunk of time where it was technically legal to have a wrist brace that would work as a kinda crap shoulder stock, but was illegal to use as a shoulder stock, because then the gun is a short barrled rifle that needs a tax stamp.
Though, you can just buy 30 round Glock magazines, so... shrug.
That's the infuriating thing. I want to say that he's flaunted the law in order to make a weapon that's illegal to posses using entirely legal means, but that isn't even correct, because it's all still legal!
Fuck incrementalization! Fuck everything! We need comprehensive reform to our gun laws, from the ground up, because the whole fucking thing is rotten to the core, deliberately so. We cannot have any meaningful legislation working within the current strictures constructed, because it's been designed to hamper any attempts at useful and meaningful restrictions!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Can these optics possibly get any fucking worse?
CNN reporter:
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-shows-trump-joking-about-crowd-sizes-while-visiting-shooting-victims/ They absolutely knew he as going to make an ass of himself.
Yeah it was more they didn't want the press to put out uncut video. But they have been literally campaigning on these visits, and El Paso where his rhetoric loaded that idiot up its sickening.
pleasepaypreacher.net
win win for the rubes
This is part of the reason why definitions matter.
Like, earlier in this thread, anyone who tried to clarify what parts were what were universally derided as trying to muddy the issue. I didn't step in because it's clear that wanting clarity was not or is not important.
But when people use casual definitions in laws, this sort of shit is what you end up with. Like, in Canada, the ban on assault rifles is very specific - and in some cases, completely fucking useless.
The things that make a gun look scary are not necessarily the things that make it an effective weapon for mass murder. Honestly, the only things you need to restrict to hamper these assholes is semi-auto rifles and magazine sizes. Everything else is window dressing. But since that's not important, and people don't care about what these things are, bans on useless bullshit will go through while the things that would actually make a difference get ignored.
Also, there is a very good reason why the 'firearm' is only one part - the receiver. Because the rest of it is just a block of wood and a metal tube. How do you restrict barrels without either being a useless restriction, or restricting things that are not part of a gun? How do you restrict stocks without the same problems?
As long as there isn't an all out ban, these are important questions that askers are often accused of nefarious purpose. But these questions matter.
Less so in discussions on a forum provided by a webcomic
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
I’m split on how to feel.
One one hand, what this dude did was monumentally stupid. Wether he was trolling or got cold feet or not. He almost got himself killed, incited a panic, and pulled valuable first responder resources from potential real emergencies.
On the other hand, from what I’ve read on MO laws, what he did doesn’t seem to be illegal and anyone can do it again until the laws change, which is part of the fucking problem.
Most generous scenario, he tried to make a point on how easy it is to mass shoot without actually killing anyone or technically breaking any laws, but did it in the most asinine way possible that almost killed himself and put others in danger.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
That's what I said.
Credit...for what, exactly? Other than creating the climate that precipitated at least one of these shootings, what was his role? Pushing for benefits for the victims? Pushing for new restrictions to prevent future incidents? Did he show up in Marine One and take down the shooter himself with a vest and a pistol? Help lead victims to cover? Perform emergency surgery saving those that could be saved?
Far as I can tell only one of the above is anything he should be getting credit for. Though, to be fair, agree he’s not getting quite enough of it.
Clarity is important when writing laws, sure.
But we don't have to speak in legalese when having discussions here on the forum.
When we say "assault weapons should be banned," a reasonable person should understand that means not just literally assault rifles, but also "assault-style" weapons. Not just a complete, assembled weapon, but also the parts that, when put together, allow a "pistol" to operate like an assault weapon.
If a law is crafted to allow all of these loopholes, it's not the average person's fault for not understanding the technical terms to request exact specifications of things. I would place the blame at the feet of those who do understand the specific technicalities, but either choose not to speak up about it, or use their knowledge to deliberately ensure loopholes exist.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar