Yes I believe so. I know it’s been said but perhaps it should be restated that the black community is not monolithic. There is a segment of the black community comparable to that of every other group in America (maybe a few exceptions). I think urban/city folk view things differently than us country folk, as a quick example.
3 Likes
With you on the city/county folks thing… that’s certainly my experience.
1 Like
@DLVick38 αѕ being from the country and moving to Austin TX, oh and being black. Open carrying in my neighborhood has been done by one other guy whom of which was black and myself, now going on what I know of the gentleman sorry to say I would not trust him with a water gun but hey not the point. As to me, I have had the stares and the "I’m going to run to my house because he has a gun"moments a couple times. But when the neighbors got to know me seen me around a few times. Usually loading riffles and swords into my car, it changed. Now there’s a cop that patrols the area and stops and chats with me for a few. ( I think she just wants to steal my pit) all and all its not bad
4 Likes
Another one of the reasons I carry openly - to get people in my community use to it.
2 Likes
Body armor and a rifle, I believe. Slightly different approach than my 5 shot snubbie holstered on my side.
2 Likes
I recently spent 2 days in Continuing Legal Education on various aspects of Kentucky law. One of the sessions was about weapons in public spaces. Public spaces were specifically addressed not as places open to the public (private businesses) but federal, state and local government facilities. They went through a history of carrying weapons, not firearms specific but focusing mostly on them. In Kentucky’s 183 or so year history, our constitution has always included a section on the right to bear arms but has left concealing firearms to the discretion of the legislature. So basically, open carry has been legal in KY since it became a state but concealed carry was limited or prohibited.
The most interesting thing here is that open carry had been historically socially acceptable until relatively recent times. Concealed carry was not acceptable. It was perfectly acceptable to carry a pair of wheel guns but the hidden derringer was deceitful.
Oh how the world has changed. Let’s chastise those places that allow open carry but it is ok if everyone has a weapon hidden upon their person.
Think about it. What they are really saying is that it is OK if people are carrying a weapon as long as they can’t see it. If I cannot see it, it cannot hurt me.
4 Likes
Guilty of making a false report? I’m not sure what the elements of that crime are but really have a hard time understanding where that came from. I understand negotiating it down but really have a hard time seeing any crime here. By negotiating the plea, the prosecutor saved face for all those who acted based upon the hype instead of the facts.
4 Likes
Mike that’s what I thought. The local news has been saying he faced years in prison and deportation. I think he took the plea to avoid any chance of being deported. I really don’t agree with what he did, but I don’t think he violated Missouri law.
2 Likes
They are for the most part I think well meaning and simply trying to draw attention to the fact that it’s legal and to desensitize the public who have been largely convinced that anytime they see someone armed crime is afoot.
Others are doing it strictly to agitate, aggravate, and or instigate panic and fear in the people they come into contact with.
4 Likes
@MikeBKY heres the two stories that gave the most details:
I think this is what they’re doing with it:
Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson said law enforcement was initially looking at the Andreychenko case as a possible mass shooting that didn’t occur. The 911 calls led to more than a dozen police officers swarming to the Walmart store and sent shoppers scurrying out into the parking lot to take cover.
As the investigation unfolded, Patterson said authorities determined Andreychenko did not have those malicious intentions. Still, prosecutors felt a crime had been committed.
“It was a really irresponsible, ill-conceived social experiment,” Patterson said. “He knew it could cause this kind of reaction. That’s why this charge of causing a false report to be made, I believe, is appropriate.”
Plus the sentence is pretty comprehensive and tuned to educating the guy:
A judge sentenced him to a 180 day suspended jail sentence, two years of probation, with special conditions requiring him to serve 48 hours shock incarceration in the county jail (which he already did in August), receive firearms training, and participate in a victim-offender dialog, a restorative justice measure, and any community service established through the restorative justice proceeding.
I think they are, in effect, taking him out behind the woodshed and giving him the educational whooping he needs to grow up.
3 Likes
We can continue to ridicule individuals… but maybe, just maybe we can band together? One gun alone is suicide in this country, face it.
2 Likes
When I look to the proposition of bearing arms… -lol, I have handcuffs, extreme sports training, and other items of purpose and protection that that don’t tote rounds at this point; I want to make sure I have a brotherhood. The proposition of being the lone cowboy in a trustworthy environment is finally expiring after the heroism of our Greatest Generation.
I really do believe that my highest purpose is to create a real fighting force to protect dignity and morality in the home beyond what law and lawyers propose.
This fighting force is of course know as a Militia by the SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!
1 Like
I actually think it sends the right message, in my opinion. Gen X with a higher ideal needs to see war in the US finally, for the constitution… specifically, for the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Have you ever even talked to a person like that, qualified, and now taking pretention to sling a rifle over his shoulder and putting in jeopardy his entire existence?
Do you think he might believe in something?
Do you think his human brain, very, very similar to your biologically feels a purpose for it (the slinging of a rifle)?
I only have pepper gel at this point, but this irate, up-strong person may have a point that he hasn’t told you about, that is why he is ready to Die, even more, than he is ready to Kill. Don’t you think?
Wow. I just read the MO statute.
MoRS 575.080. “1. A person commits the crime of making a false report if he knowingly … causes a false report to be made to a law enforcement officer … which deals with emergencies involving danger to life or property that a fire or other incident calling for an emergency response has occurred or is about to occur.“
That is really scary. My son in OH was at a Walmart in northern OH a few days after El Paso and as he reached for something off an upper shelf, his EDC was exposed briefly and a woman walking down the aisle asked him how he could possibly think that carrying a gun in a Walmart after what happened in Dayton and El Paso.
Under the MO law used, anyone carrying a weapon could could be prosecuted whether the person’s fear of danger is reasonable or not. What happens when someone points a finger gun at someone at Walmart? Assault with a deadly weapon?
2 Likes
Let me put it this way, days following El Paso and Dayton, it was predictable that a second amendment audit at a Walmart by a person carrying a rifle, body armor in camo, basically dressed like the El Paso assailant, would raise concerns by both Walmart employees and patrons. And I cannot say that their concern was unreasonable.
2 Likes
Yeah you are right on that specific. I was more focused on general assertions last night, lol. Pushing the envelope on the right to balance left extremists if you will.
2 Likes
Could it? Well I suppose that could be used to bring charges against someone like your son.
In practice, though, what happens in Missouri is the cops take the reporting person to task in an educational way… they explain that what they are doing is legal under Missouri law and ask them why they are wasting police time reporting people who are 100% within their legal rights.
That’s actually what officers have told me when I ask them about these situations. Last time I had a conversation with one locally, maybe 4 or 5 months ago, he said that for a while after we became constitutional carry they had to have that conversation with people pretty often - now they rarely do. From his telling, they do a pretty stern scolding of the offending reporter (that’s how they see it … the frivolous report is the offense).
When we were dealing with the jerk stalking my granddaughter, we were in the county sheriff’s office and I got to listen to them take such a call. The officer asked several questions about what they saw, and where they were seeing it. About the 3rd or 4th question it started to go like this:
Are they threatening anyone? Did they draw the gun and point it at anyone? Were they arguing with anybody? Were they acting funny?
And they he followed up with:
"Carrying a firearm is 100% legal, and it’s his constitutional right. Why are you calling to report someone for doing something that’s perfectly legal?
So while I think the law could be abused (a great many laws can be), I’m not seeing evidence that it is. Maybe it’s different in the big cities, but most of the counties are what we are - rural, and rather on the sensible side.
3 Likes
I agree with you completely @Zee! I am not saying the law is being abused, however, while I disagree with what he did, the young man that accepted this plea did absolutely nothing illegal. Crimes generally require a criminal act (actus reus) and a criminal mental state (mens rea). The criminal act alleged was causing a false report and the mental state was knowingly. I think we would all agree that yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is not a fire would cause the fire department to be notified and that the knowingly would be imputed based upon the facts even though he has a freedom of speech.
In this particular instance, at what point when would you know that this will cause a false report? And does it make a difference that he knew it may cause someone to react but not that it would cause a false report. What if he was in a suit with the rifle and no armor? What about armor with no visible weapon.
Several attorneys were sitting waiting in a workroom waiting for court to start a week or so ago. One of the attorney was a former prosecutor who recently took her daughter to a parade. She was appalled that there was a man there open carrying a handgun. He did absolutely nothing illegal and the weapon remained secured throughout the event. She moved because she was afraid that something might happen. She knew it was perfectly legal and started a rant about how carrying a gun at a parade invaded on her right to the pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence not Constitution) and that his rights should end where they interfere with her rights.
The thing I cringe at is when the government imposes sanctions against a person exercising their rights simply because another person takes offense or fears something whether that fear is rational or not.
3 Likes
I think at the point where both his wife and his sister told him that it was a bad idea and that it would scare people, in light of the still-fresh El Paso killings, and tried to talk him out of it. That’s a pretty good case for "should have known ".
He has a history of behaving provocatively and videoing the results and posting it on his YouTube channel, so maybe that applies… criminal? Not sure, but the history of provoking people to react is there, and the reason he gave for videoing was to have a record if someone was provoked to respond in an illegal way to his actions. I think that goes clearly to his state of mind (intending to provoke people into action).
Yep. I think it does matter. Given our local dress standards, had he chosen hunting clothes or chinos or a suit he would have likely been a lot less provocative. Ok, well, maybe the suit might have been provocative because you never see that in the local Walmart, so it would have registered as weird.
In any case, he chose to dress for maximum impact. I believe (of course, can’t prove) that had he been wearing camo and not plate carriers, had the rifle slung on his back and not dangling in front on a single point sling, and not been videoing people’s reactions, there’d have been no panic. He very likely could have conducted his 2A audit with the same guns, same ammo, in the same location, probably even on the same day without panicking the other patrons.
Which is where, in Missouri, if she made a complaint she’d be the one getting a lecture from the police.
I agree, that’s the very scary part.
And I’d say this part:
… is the crux of this case.
Given the man’s choices in dress, behavior, location, and timing relative to events just a few days old, I think people’s fear in this instance was rational, predictable, and not exaggerated.
I think we definitely have to guard the gate against where that fear runs into irrational or unreasonable territory very carefully. Reasonableness is always a judgment, and it’s very hard to legislate.
I always appreciate the opportunity to work these things through with you @MikeBKY 
3 Likes