National Man decides to open carry an AR at a WalMart in Missouri today...

[tourproto]

It was on all of the media outlets, NBC, WAPO, CNN, NYT, National Review, ABC, CBS, Washington Times, all of them, why only Fox News for you I wonder?

Dunno. I get regular news from almost all of the above on my phone and email, but FOX was the only one that had this story..

 

[Member 5605]

It went exactly as you would expect after El Paso. The guy is lucky to be alive and should be charged.

Former firefighter stops man armed with 100 rounds of ammunition at south Springfield Walmart

The Springfield Police Department says it responded to a potential threat at the Walmart Neighborhood Market on Republic Rd. near Golden Avenue, Thursday afternoon.

www.ky3.com

Curious what laws he broke besides 'bad taste'.

I saw they were trying to trump up some terrorism charges. I guess they have to fall back on the 'intent' of this like Hillary Clinton and her emails. He didn't 'intend' to do anything, so nothing was done wrong.

I'd love to sit in that jury.

Depending on age, a rifle may be all he is able to use for self defense. (I don't care much to dig into his psyche) Why should the terms of self defense only be limited to a pistol?

Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should but because you can't doesn't mean it's in the best of taste or illegal.

It was stated in a blurb I read that he was concerned after the recent shooting incidents for his own safety, out of preservation of life, acted.

 

[KKG]

Not the smartest thing to do and he proved it.

 

[RicInOR]

Curious what laws he broke besides 'bad taste'.

I saw they were trying to trump up some terrorism charges. I guess they have to fall back on the 'intent' of this like Hillary Clinton and her emails. He didn't 'intend' to do anything, so nothing was done wrong.

I'd love to sit in that jury.

Depending on age, a rifle may be all he is able to use for self defense. (I don't care much to dig into his psyche) Why should the terms of self defense only be limited to a pistol?

Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should but because you can't doesn't mean it's in the best of taste or illegal.

It was stated in a blurb I read that he was concerned after the recent shooting incidents for his own safety, out of preservation of life, acted.

What I was thinking too. Well we probably know more about this incident then we do about Las Vegas. Maybe not.

What probable cause did the firefighter have to detain this guy?

 

[bentoncity]

Charged...

Dan

 

[Wombat of Doom]

No, it doesn't do us any favors as gunowners, but I'm not sure that's the point. Americans always seem to focus on the rights of the individual, and reject calls to make sacrifices in favor of the collective (socialism, communism, boo hiss). Except when we don't. This is what I find interesting.

Here's a thought problem: Put aside your notions of common sense, or with somebody should or shouldn't do and look at the situation with only logic. While acknowledging the person was breaking no law, you expect him to adjust his behavior to satisfy the needs of the collective to feel safe. Particularly in light of recent events, which demand a heightened awareness of and deference to, the emotional needs of the masses. Isn't this precisely the same argument that gun grabbers would make for why we all need to surrender our guns?

In a society of laws, the law defines the limits of our behavior. You may choose to go above and beyond because it's the wise thing to do or the polite thing to do, but you should never be compelled to do so. Like it or not, legally the responsibility is on walmart and the police to correctly figure out that he's not breaking the law and act accordingly.

This, by the way, is the exact argument that people make when rape is discussed. The poor choices someone makes leading up to a rape (going out alone, dressing provocatively, getting drunk with strangers, etc.) don't justify the rape (and they don't). In fact, any appeal to common sense and making smart decisions regardless of the law will inevitably lead to accusations of victim blaming.

In essence, the argument is that a woman should not have to modify her behavior in any way in deference to common sense, she has every right to expect that everyone will act legally at all times. This perspective has been universally adopted by the courts and victim advocates. Intellectually, how is this situation any different?

It's not. I find it interesting that gun owners are quick to jump on someone's legal rights, effectively normalizing taking of rights. To do so, is to be the anti-gunner we oppose.

I generally don't open carry. But if it is legal, I am fine with exercising legal rights. If the article is correct, the firefighter probably should be charged with assault though, for threatening someone breaking no law.

 

[bentoncity]

I generally don't open carry. But if it is legal, I am fine with exercising legal rights. If the article is correct, the firefighter probably should be charged with assault though, for threatening someone breaking no law.

I'd have to disagree with charging the FF. I had to put myself into the shoes of both and can see both sides of the coin. That being said, I'm also of the belief the gun toting guy was an idiot for doing what he did. I'm also of the opinion he's damn lucky he wasn't shot by someone. But you can't fix stupid! If we could, we wouldn't have the legislators we currently have nor the voters that put them there...

Dan

 

[titsonritz]

Andreychenko allegedly said he was testing whether Walmart "honored the Second Amendment."

He should have studied harder.

 

[CLT65]

I can't believe anyone here is so concerned about this guy's "rights", and in any way defending what he did. This isn't about guns or gun rights; it's about some attention-seeking idiot doing something incredibly stupid and dangerous. Had I been in that store with my family, I'd be absolutely furious about it.

From the article:
"Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson said in a news release Friday that Missouri's open carry laws don't give citizens the right to act recklessly. He compared it to free speech laws not allowing people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, causing panic. "

He's got it absolutely right, in my opinion. Seeing someone walking through a store dressed like that, carrying an AR, at a time like that, is not funny at all. If I'd have been shopping with my kids, I'd have been seriously worried too, not because of the gun, but because of not knowing whether the guy holding it is a murderous psychopath or an attention-deprived loser.

I was with the family at a kid's camp last weekend, and there was some kind of security incident. The organizers of the camp asked everyone to pack into a building and lock the doors, couple hundred people. They never did tell us what it was about, but in the time it took to get word around whatever the problem was must have been taken care of and everything was fine. It was a fairly minor disturbance, but I was very concerned for my family and would have done anything needed to protect them. For someone to cause real panic and scare the wits out of people deliberately just to make some kind of statement? Don't get hung up on the "gun" angle; think about what this guy did, terrorizing and traumatizing people. Of course he committed a crime.

Charging the guy who stopped him? Really? That was a good guy with a gun, doing what a good guy with a gun does. He should be applauded, as most everyone is. That should be the real takeaway from this story; an armed citizen doing the right thing.

 

[DunRanull]

Doesn't seem like the guy with the rifle had any intent to shoot up the place. As a matter of fact I don't think he could even be hit for brandishing a weapon, the FF on the other hand brandished his weapon. If push came to shove and the rifle man shot the fire fighter who drew on him first he would technically be in the right correct?

Not saying the guy with the rifle wasn't a top grade moron/wanting attention, but playing the devils advocate here apparently WalMarts are dangerous places nowadays the rifleman could be dressed in what he considers to be appropriate attire for Walmart

There are literally dozens of websites dedicated to what people think of as "appropriate attire for Walmart shoppers"..

 

[bsa1917hunter]

I'm conflicted when I hear stuff like this. Especially now that this guy is being charged with terrorism charges.

I would suspect this guy followed the law because he didn't start shooting anyone.

Vague laws used to prosecute people exercising constitutional rights should be very concerning to everyone in this community.

While this guy picked the wrong place and the wrong time to engage in this behavior, one of the purposes of these news stories is to keep the general population scared of firearms.

It's a slippery slope and we should be clamoring to see this guy let go due to our right to bear arms.

This guy was an idiot but operating within the limits of the law. Swinging your fist around in the air is legal until you strike another person's face.

@Talos32 nailed it as far as I'm concerned

I hope the judge throws this out, but I imagine the judge will apply the maximum penalty indicating that the terrorism of these mass shooters is working.

I agree with you and talos on this matter. I am not in agreement with everyone else saying they need to throw the book at this guy. He didnt break any laws. Was the guy stupid to do this right now after the recent shootings? Yes! BUT, we are letting them infringe on our rights to bear arms when even our own brotherhood is paranoid about what we can and cant do. If its legal to open carry, thats the law. No way in hell im going to say "throw the book at him". Where will that stop? When we are out in public everywhere? Do you guys want your rights reduced so much that the only place you can legally have a gun is in the privacy of your own home or on a private range. You guys start stating throw the book at him and they will slowly start taking our rights away. No more shooting in national forests or any other PUBLIC place. If thats what you guys want, you are just as much to blame as the anti 2a groups, when they take our rights away. "Shall not be infringed upon" has a certain amount of meaning to me.

 

[DunRanull]

I agree with you and talos on this matter. I am not in agreement with everyone else saying they need to throw the book at this guy. He didnt break any laws. Was the guy stupid to do this right now after the recent shootings? Yes! BUT, we are letting them infringe on our rights to bear arms when even our own brotherhood is paranoid about what we can and cant do. If its legal to open carry, thats the law. No way in hell im going to say "throw the book at him". Where will that stop? When we are out in public everywhere? Do you guys want your rights reduced so much that the only place you can legally have a gun is in the privacy of your own home or on a private range. You guys start stating throw the book at him and they will slowly start taking our rights away. No more shooting in national forests or any other PUBLIC place. If thats what you guys want, you are just as much to blame as the anti 2a groups, when they take our rights away. "Shall not be infringed upon" has a certain amount of meaning to me.

A choice I might have made would have been to shadow the guy/idiot/moron until he either did something hinky, or he left the parking lot in his car. While he may have been within his rights to carry "battle gear" into the store, doesnt mean we have to roll like defenseless puppies. It is within MY rights to shop where ever he might be shopping in the store.
Edit to add: I personally conceal carry in public places like wallyworld. Carry to protect family and self. Concealed so as not to attract attention to self as "armed".

 

[BDA.45]

I can't believe anyone here is so concerned about this guy's "rights", and in any way defending what he did. This isn't about guns or gun rights; it's about some attention-seeking idiot doing something incredibly stupid and dangerous. Had I been in that store with my family, I'd be absolutely furious about it.

From the article:
"Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson said in a news release Friday that Missouri's open carry laws don't give citizens the right to act recklessly. He compared it to free speech laws not allowing people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, causing panic. "

He's got it absolutely right, in my opinion. Seeing someone walking through a store dressed like that, carrying an AR, at a time like that, is not funny at all. If I'd have been shopping with my kids, I'd have been seriously worried too, not because of the gun, but because of not knowing whether the guy holding it is a murderous psychopath or an attention-deprived loser.

I was with the family at a kid's camp last weekend, and there was some kind of security incident. The organizers of the camp asked everyone to pack into a building and lock the doors, couple hundred people. They never did tell us what it was about, but in the time it took to get word around whatever the problem was must have been taken care of and everything was fine. It was a fairly minor disturbance, but I was very concerned for my family and would have done anything needed to protect them. For someone to cause real panic and scare the wits out of people deliberately just to make some kind of statement? Don't get hung up on the "gun" angle; think about what this guy did, terrorizing and traumatizing people. Of course he committed a crime.

Charging the guy who stopped him? Really? That was a good guy with a gun, doing what a good guy with a gun does. He should be applauded, as most everyone is. That should be the real takeaway from this story; an armed citizen doing the right thing.

A few things. Yes, what he did was stupid. Was it against the law? No.(so far) Should the firemans be charged? After all is said and done, YES. According to THE LAW. Should the dude be charged? That's a grey area. I agree with the analogy of fire in a theater.......just sayn

NEXT, Were you one of those people who locked yourself and your loved ones into a packed room blindly and trusted the "authority" of said security to your self preservation? Because I wouldn't.

 

[BDA.45]

I self preserve myself and my loved ones

 

[Member 52301]

This story has been all over the news (Boob tube - local - OTA stations, online and on the radio.) including on local radio stations on the East Coast.
I have been listening to several local stations up and down the East Coast recently off of my computer.

I don't know if this guy was going to shoot any person or thing in Walmart while filming himself but AFTER all of the crapola that has been going on - he sure did not do gun folks any favors in my opinion. I think that he was stupid in doing this.

I read what he wrote online IF that is really his own writing. Who knows in this day and age?! Not me. You can find what he wrote about hating Walmart and their gun/ammo rules and some other stuff of his online unless it has been SCRUBBED ALREADY. It was online and on the news the night that the story broke nationwide.

Why did he have on body armor while going into Walmart? (I am not knocking people who own or wear this equipment but it seems pretty strange to me for this guy to do this.) He sounds like an attention getting punk!

I read and heard that he had a pistol and that one rifle on him. Extra ammo and the guns were loaded.

(I do believe in keeping a gun loaded if you open or conceal carry a handgun. Use a good quality holster too.)

When my husband goes into Walmart and in other places that allow firearms, he usually conceal carries - 99%. There have been many other times and places where he has open carried but he was not carrying a rifle on his body with full military gear on as if he was fighting in a war zone!

I am a HUGE advocate of open carry and did this when I used to own and shoot handguns. I NEVER had any issues with it either. I know that many people don't agree with me and some people, not just gun folks, don't like to SEE open carry of handguns too.

Some MT people think this way too, born/raised MT people, which I never understood but they told me that they don't LIKE guns too. NO kidding. They told my husband this, not just me, but when they got scared - they seemed to know our number. LOL And they are too chicken to be in the woods/wilderness too far off the beaten path.

You can see guys ride a bike with a rifle slung on their shoulder around here on and off. Usually during hunting season. My MT born/raised husband said that kids and young men rode their bikes and walked with their rifles going to specific areas where they could PLINK legally many moons ago. NOT just at a range too. Across town.

They had rifle teams in cities (NYC, Baltimore, etc.) and in small town/rural schools ALL across this nation. Kids/teens/adults used to have their rifles on a truck window rack and nobody considered it a threat! You could take your rifle on a subway or bus in NYC too. My late Mom used to take her fencing equipment back and forth on public transportation.

But due to some jack wagons and attention who___es who want it to be ALL ABOUT THEM whether they are sane or insane, on drugs or not and with ILL intentions or NOT... these kind of people RUIN IT FOR MANY OTHER GUN FOLKS ACROSS THIS NATION.

The guy is lucky that the police did not see him first and consider him an ARMED threat thinking that he was going to film a shoot out/murder because ONE policeman said this right away. Quote: "He was lucky that he was not shot or he is lucky to be alive." I think this is verbatim and if it is not - it is pretty close to what he said.

Disclaimer: I never open carried in a Walmart store.

We shop at several stores in this town. We do shop at Walmart on and off for some items too. Movies that have been on sale, some condiments, etc.

I am glad to hear that they are still going to carry guns, ammo and reloading supplies even after the bad publicity and horrific murders. We have never bought a gun from them but we have bought some RF ammo, shotgun shells when my husband still owned a shotgun on sale and a tiny bit of CF factory ammo from them. We found some reloading powders there when we could not find them in our local stores in the past too. My MT husband has been reloading since the 70's but we still buy a bit of CF factory ammo on and off.

I sent him to our local Walmart to buy some extra factory 30-30 ammunition to SUPPORT them still selling ammo a day ago. I am going to call them (Local and HQ.) and THANK THEM for doing this too. The news on the financial and other websites said that they were going to continue with their gun, ammo and reloading supplies almost immediately AFTER the shootings by a day or two days (?). I can't remember but the story came out and it took a bit for it to get more coverage nationwide.

Old Lady Cate
Added more and typos.

 

[Member 5605]

Just remember all, this doesn't pass the AOJ rule.

 

[Alexx1401]

It is attention seeking morons like this that help get more laws passed. What he did as far as I can tell was legal. So you can bet the law makers there will be busy making sure it no longer is. Then those who see nothing wrong with what he did can scream when they do make it illegal.

 

[Mikej]

I can't believe anyone here is so concerned about this guy's "rights", and in any way defending what he did. This isn't about guns or gun rights; it's about some attention-seeking idiot doing something incredibly stupid and dangerous. Had I been in that store with my family, I'd be absolutely furious about it.

From the article:
"Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson said in a news release Friday that Missouri's open carry laws don't give citizens the right to act recklessly. He compared it to free speech laws not allowing people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, causing panic. "

He's got it absolutely right, in my opinion. Seeing someone walking through a store dressed like that, carrying an AR, at a time like that, is not funny at all. If I'd have been shopping with my kids, I'd have been seriously worried too, not because of the gun, but because of not knowing whether the guy holding it is a murderous psychopath or an attention-deprived loser.

For someone to cause real panic and scare the wits out of people deliberately just to make some kind of statement? Don't get hung up on the "gun" angle; think about what this guy did, terrorizing and traumatizing people. Of course he committed a crime.

Charging the guy who stopped him? Really? That was a good guy with a gun, doing what a good guy with a gun does. He should be applauded, as most everyone is. That should be the real takeaway from this story; an armed citizen doing the right thing.

This guy has the same rights we do, doesn't he? Should we give folks IQ tests and then divvy out rights depending on the number?

An armed citizen doing the right thing? Would that go the same for one of us holding a masked antifa puke at gun point? Bank robbers, and all manor of criminals, wear masks don't they.

People wouldn't be so traumatized and terrorized if the media didn't push the mass shooter agenda every damned news cycle! Day after day.

 

[CLT65]

Some of you are missing my point. Yes, he has the same rights we all do. Yes, open carry is legal there so apparently he didn't break laws regarding open carry.

In my opinion this really doesn't have anything do do with guns or open carry. You guys are focused on that aspect of it and missing the rest. Forget about the open carry/gun rights part of it and think about what he really did. He deliberately scared the heck out of a bunch of people and caused a public panic. That is illegal, and they should throw the book at him, and that has nothing to do with open carry laws. Charging this joker with inciting a public panic does not endanger our rights.

Those who say the public just needs to get used to it, and people need to mind their own business, have you ever been in that situation? Have you been with your family and young children when a very serious situation seems to be developing? You can talk tough all day long, but that's when the rubber meets the road. All the theories and legal arguments melt away and it becomes about what are you going to do if that weirdo becomes as dangerous as he looks, how you will try to protect the lives of your children.

It's all about the specific circumstances. I've seen people around here open-carrying pistols, a fair amount. My wife never even notices until I point it out. I won't do it, but it doesn't bother me at all. There's a world of difference between that and putting on all your battle rattle and making a public spectacle of yourself in a crowded public area. It's not the open-carrying that is the problem- it's about deliberately causing a public panic. And yes, given the specific circumstances, the good guy with a gun who stopped him should be given a medal.

 

[SavageGerbil]

Some of you are missing my point. Yes, he has the same rights we all do. Yes, open carry is legal there so apparently he didn't break laws regarding open carry.

In my opinion this really doesn't have anything do do with guns or open carry. You guys are focused on that aspect of it and missing the rest. Forget about the open carry/gun rights part of it and think about what he really did. He deliberately scared the heck out of a bunch of people and caused a public panic. That is illegal, and they should throw the book at him, and that has nothing to do with open carry laws. Charging this joker with inciting a public panic does not endanger our rights.

Those who say the public just needs to get used to it, and people need to mind their own business, have you ever been in that situation? Have you been with your family and young children when a very serious situation seems to be developing? You can talk tough all day long, but that's when the rubber meets the road. All the theories and legal arguments melt away and it becomes about what are you going to do if that weirdo becomes as dangerous as he looks, how you will try to protect the lives of your children.

It's all about the specific circumstances. I've seen people around here open-carrying pistols, a fair amount. My wife never even notices until I point it out. I won't do it, but it doesn't bother me at all. There's a world of difference between that and putting on all your battle rattle and making a public spectacle of yourself in a crowded public area. It's not the open-carrying that is the problem- it's about deliberately causing a public panic. And yes, given the specific circumstances, the good guy with a gun who stopped him should be given a medal.

100% with you. It's the same situation I outlined earlier in this thread. The problem in this situation isn't the gun, it's the conduct. If it had been an oversized cigarette lighter, would we even be defending this guy? We all talk about blaming the person when someone does a shooting, but in this situation we're switching teams and going to "The gun didn't do anything wrong!"

Absolutely, him possessing a weapon wasn't what made this situation a problem. Honestly, I'd like to see shots from the security tapes. My buddy works at Walmart, and he's always happy to see someone armed. However, he's had morons come in with rifles...not strapped to their back where they belong, but walking through the store with rifle at low ready. Being a responsible gun owner doesn't stop at just obeying the big four of safety.