Rick-546746

Having a firearm in a holster is NOT "brandishing".

Please don't assume I'm agianst guns. Please don't even assume that I'm against carrying a gun. My point is, and I think you know this, when you are quick to make sure it is seen in public, people are not going to be comfortable around you. I know a lot of you think people should because be comfortable because you could be the one to "save the day", but based on this story, people are not comfortable around those who find it necessary that we see your gun.

Brandishing a weapon, where in this story did you see anything that said he was brandishing a weapon? He had the weapon in a holster tucked in the waistband of his pants in the small of his back. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of brandishing, cause this sure wasn't it.

Fricsaid

I never insinuated you were and I apologize if it came across that way. MY response was actually to Rick.

That being said, I don't know CT law. In VA and TX a carry permit is for CONCEALED carry, and it means just that. A carry firearm needs to be concealed. Of course there are those 'occasions' where a holstered firearm is momentarily visible, but that is generally accepted by a LEO as unintentional.

Predicated on where I am, I might have a hip holster or a small of the back. They will be covered but accessible. Unfortunately, every so often, my outter jacket or shirt will catch and "display" my firearm, until I get my clothing rearranged.

Knowing that Mr. Hwang had an SOB style holster, I'm going to surmise his jacket rose over the holster and someone saw it and reacted. Whether that reaction was warranted or not is immaterial. They felt uncomfortable so to them it was warranted.

However, as there were apparently several people that saw it, why did they not tell the responding LEOs which individual it was and the LEOs could have potentially handled the entire scenario differently. Like approach the specific individual and not search every patron.

So when will the day come that we are all ran through a metal detector and patted down before entering any public store?

It's all good Xdm....I've read your post before and I see you to have a level head. Perhaps I should have made a better choice of words. Peace to you. :o)

James-546195-1049965

Who goes there at ANY TIME???? Do you have a death wish or just making a supply run to the local dealer?

Fricsaid

Thank you. We may not always agree on everything, but at least we're adult enough to disagree civilly.

Have a great and SAFE day and future!!

@fricsaid - regardless, making a generalization like you did isnt the best way to go about it. Brandishing is very illegal, regardless of if you have a permit or not. My father in law is an instructor for CCW classes, so i have had the differences pounded into my head for a while now. It's not semantics, semantics describe two things that are the SAME with different words. They actually have to be the same. Carrying a gun in plain view, and brandishing a gun are two different things. Flaunting a gun is not the same as brandishing either. Flaunting means to display something in order to provoke envy or admiration. Brandish means to wave or flourish as in a threat or excitement. This man did not do that according to the report.

It's pretty sad when you think you need to carry a gun to feel safe. I support the right to bear arms but our country is so damn scared sh@tless at everything and everybody thanks to the media and years of fear mongering. OMG the terrorists are behind every bush waiting to get YOU.

Now the homeland security, or the Nazi SS group as I see them, want you to report on your fellow neighbor. This isnt going to end well if we keep on this course.

His real problem is that he did NOT have his weapon CONCEALED. That's why its called a CONCEALED weapon permit.

I sometimes carry and make SURE the weapon is CONCEALED so I don't worry people around me who are uncomfortable with guns.

If I saw someone with an exposed weapon when it is supposed to be CONCEALED I would also call the law .... I certainly wouldn't tell him his weapon is exposed, like his fly is open. He may actually have sinister motives. However, I would watch him carefully in case he decided to do something untoward.

What would be interesting is if concerned citizens tackled him and disarmed him to "save" others.... I wonder who would be arrested??

In Kansas, if you have a Concealed Carry permit and someone sees the holster it may be considered Brandishing a Firearm. On the other hand, with no Concealed Carry Permit, you are allowed to wear a holster in open sight and carry a firearm as long as you are not a felon and not breaking other laws in doing so.

dewey

So what happens if I decide to openly carry and leave my permit at home? Screwy law.

Kansas - a real Catch 22 law. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I also have a concealed carry license. I very rarely carry a gun but when I do, nobody knows it because it's concealed! There is no reason why this guy couldn't have done a better job not letting his firearm been seen. I'm sure after the shootings there has been a lot of guns in movie theaters lately that no one knows about.

So much for all the people saying if you have a gun you could prevent a crime! Hilarious! And you will never never win out with a gun against the government or the cops--no matter what you think the 2nd amendment says.

This is a perfect example!

James-546195-1049965

You have a right, but also you have a brain. If you are worried about crime, WTF are you going to the movies for that late with a late finish time. Last time I checked here in DC, we don't go down into South East after dark...use some common sense.

Maybe for the same reason people still fly after 9-11 they refuse to give in to terrorist

@peacenik33472

In most states you do not need a permit to open carry a firearm. 26 states allow you to open carry without a permit, unfortunately you may get stopped by an officer because most officers do not know the law in their state and think it is illegal to open carry. The CCW permit is to conceal a weapon on your person.

My opinion about the story is, the lawyer had it concealed in the small of his back. People probably saw it when he was sitting down in his seat and saw the holster. For all those calling this guy an idiot, think about this.... If someone was carrying in Aurora, I bet there would have been a lot less deaths....

He didn't break the law but was arrested for be uncooperative. Wow usually they say resisting arrest. This is a new one. What are you in for? I was uncooperative.

@XDm9mm

I have an XDm .45 dual-tone 4.5" barrel setup. Nice to meet another Springfield owner. I'm actually going for my CCW (or as they are called in MN, PTC - Permit to Carry) later this month. Nice to see another responsible gun owner.

New Haven sounds like a real hell hole. The better answer might be to the question why aren't you carrying a gun.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/may/24/new-haven-fourth-most-dangerous-city-us-according-/

AW from KC.....for what it's worth "flaunt" is actually used as a synonym for "brandish". As much as I appreciate your opinion, I'll side with common knowledge.

Notice that he did not break the law by CARRYING his weapon in the movie theater. That was allowed under their laws. What he did wrong was, first, allow it to be seen and, second, was uncooperative.

When carrying with a concealed weapons permit the first requirement is it must stay concealed. This is understandable since there are many who get freaked out by the sight of a gun. So allowing it to be seen broke the rules for carry concealment. Of course the second, being uncooperative, was stupid as well.

But don't be critical of him carrying and I carry everywhere I go to. Whether it is the grocery store, home depot, Walmart, Red Lobster, or, yes, the movie theater. Those of us who carry do NOT carry because we believe every situation is a dangerous one and, in fact, to date NONE have been dangerous situations (I hope that to ALWAYS be the case). But I don't want to be in a situation the one time I DON'T carry so it goes everywhere I go.

I am hopeful that the only times I shoot my gun is at the range but I have it ready should that not be the case. I would rather have a gun and not need it then to need a gun and not have it.

WWJD999 I think most realize they cannot beat the government with bullets. I think when most realize the Legal Firearm Owner Genocide is wrong the pressure will build for a different approach. Its not about guns its about Constitutional freedoms. So it would be genocide.

What he did wrong was, first, allow it to be seen and, second, was uncooperative

That's rich. What are you Canadian? The cops come he shows them his permit and then he watches the movie. Nowhere does it say in this story the gun was outside his holster. Your definition of concealment is why we need lawyers to protect us from boneheads. One day you might be arrested for being uncooperative. I would love to hear you spout off then.

Ron-12731967

Very nice selection. I like this MUCH better than any of the Glock I own. Actually I'm thinking of trading them in for either differetn SA's or possibly Rugers.

Good luck with the PTC. Don't forget, once you get it, practice, practice and practice. And more training. When you're not training more practice.... you get the picture. But above all BE SAFE.

I lived in MN for a few years. Maple Grove, worked in Eden Prarie. I hated looking forward to zero as a warming trend!! Never looked back when I left.

Breadex: Your irrational response is the major hurdle that we gun owners must overcome. Why is the argument always that a gun owner MIGHT misuse their weapon and, for that reason, they must be taken away. Why don't we focus on penalizing the gun owner that DOES misuse their weapon and leave the law abiding gun owners alone?

That is like saying since there MIGHT be people who beat their kids with belts we should outlaw belts. Or since there MIGHT be people who do not watch their swimming pools and some MIGHT drown we should outlaw pools. Or since there MIGHT be people who view child porn on their computers we should outlaw computers. In EVERY OTHER case in our society we punish the person who breaks the law. ONLY with guns is the logic used that something MIGHT be used so should outlaw completely.

So why don't we focus on the person who BREAKS THE LAW!! If you use ANY item in a manner that is illegal then you should be charged with a crime whether that is a gun, swimming pools, or computers. Leave the 50 million responsible gun owners out of the issue.

I'm wondering if when he was seated and talking on his phone he knew he was in trouble and was calling for legal council, and if that is the case, then why is he being charged with being uncooperative?

breadex

Sooner or later a couple of these gun nuts are gonna open up on each other thinking the other is the criminal and a lot of people are going to suffer for it.

So we've been a country for what over 200 years or so. Back in the early days there were much lax gun laws, cite one reference or incidents in which you are speaking of. Or do you just think future generations are going to be as dumb as you?

Having a concealed carry permit means that you have the right to conceal a weapon right? So why is it wrong to have a concealed carry permit and have someone see the weapon? Is it against the law to have someone see my concealed weapon? That makes absolutely NO sense. All that permit means is that you can hide the weapon on your person. Not that it has to be hidden. That makes no sense!

Patrick: Sorry, your rambling reply I am not quite certain what you mean. You call me a "bonehead" but can't put together a rational sentence that can be understood.

Did he not let it be seen? Isn't that why the police were called? I never said it was outside his holster. So where was my "bonehead" comment? When carrying a concealed weapon it is not to be seen by the public. I never said he brandished it. I never said the gun itself was seen. What I said is the holster was seen which is against the law of carry conceal.

If I am asked if I have a weapon the answer is "yes" and allow them to secure the weapon. Then I request they allow me to show them my carry conceal permit (so no sudden movements) and they will review the permit, return the weapon, and I go on my merry way. I would not be uncooperative and in fact quite the opposite. That was why I said this guy did two things wrong: He allowed a concealed weapon to be seen and was uncooperative.

Your response was unintelligent and illogical and for the life of me have no idea what your point is. If you want to clarify your point we can have an adult debate but comments like "boneheads" or calling someone "Canadian" certainly doesn't show the others in this forum that you can carry an intelligent conversation.

Wow, this is interesting. Right to bear arms, feel safe, finish a cell phone conversation, high crime rate... Lotsa things in conflict here. There's a great big argument that in effect says that if patrons in Aurora were packing as they are allowed, there would have been fewer casualties, yet in Hartford patrons spotted a gun an came to the erroneous conclusion that the guy was up to no good and called the cops. The cops needed cause to arrest and uncooperative fit the bill. Pay attention to this as it plays out.

permit ot not...brandish a gun around me in public and I'll assume I need to protect myself from you...I have rights to not be threatened by every chickenhawk who wants to pacl heat

Rick, A lot of good that "right" did those movie goers in Colorado.

I guess if the Police can't protect you, society says you shouldn't be able to protect yourself either then.

@XDm9mm

Where are you at now?

I also own a Ruger Mark III 2245 as well. 2 sites you may want to check out is mnguntalk.com and also brassstacker.com - I just got the Tungsten Carbide Recoil Rod for my XDm. Makes a HUGE difference.

btw, this year it was 70 degrees on my birthday in March.

A CHL licensee carrying a gun in a movie is a non-event.

A CHL allowing his gun to be seen is a problem. They don't call it a CONCEALED permit for nothing. CHL owners have to be sensitive to the delicate perceptions of the general population, which can cause everything from people getting upset to closet Rambos using it as an excuse to go assault someone.

If allowing it to be seen caused a public disturbance he should be charged as such.

@Jonathan F: it's not an issue of carrying to "feel" safe. If society is so safe, why do we have police patrols? @!$%# happens, on a regular basis.

It's an issue of personal responsibility. The police are always 10 minutes away from when you need them.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

I carry 24/7 365 days a year and you would never know it. It's called concealed for a reason!

Worse that should happen is to show your carry permit upon entering the theater.

The last state fair I went to, as I entered the "pat-down zone", I showed the person my CHL & was immediately allowed to walk over to another area where they verified my DL & CHL were valid. No big deal....

Criminals do not carry permits..........

For all those calling this guy an idiot, think about this.... If someone was carrying in Aurora, I bet there would have been a lot less deaths....

The gunman in Aurora was wearing heavy-duty armor. If a patron had decided to start shooting back, there'd probably have been more innocent people dead, not less.

I always have my weapon with me, and yes I'd have it at the movies. Not so much for the theater but for the parking lot. But going the other day there were signs up banning weapons from the theater, so I returned to my car and left my gun. Out of curiosity after the movie I drove to the back doors and No Notice was posted. So I guess Eagan Holmes would have no problem bringing his weapons in. Or do you think a notice would have stopped him?

Patsycamoure3 Ignorance of the law is not a Constitutional Right.

I've seen several posts over the past couple of weeks regarding shootings and there is a repeated narrative that goes "Had there been others with guns there would have been fewer people shot". I keep running that through my head and the same scene comes up.

A person opens fire in a crowded public place. An armed citizen jumps up and returns fire. Someone else in the crowd pulls his gun and starts to shoot too. At this point who can tell which is the good guy and who is evil? People running in all directions in fear, screams, smoke and the sound of gunfire. And an untrained individual is going to be able to discern who everyone is and what role are they playing in this. Do "good guys" have some aura of goodness? Do they wear "good guy" shirts? Is there a light that shine only on them in these circumstances?

Honest question, how do you, as a shooter in chaos, decide who to shoot?

Why don't we focus on penalizing the gun owner that DOES misuse their weapon and leave the law abiding gun owners alone?

Gun owners that do misuse their weapons are penalized. James Holmes is in custody and awaiting trial. Jared Loughner will spend life in prison. Colin Ferguson won't be eligible for parole until 2309. The trouble is, you never know when a law-abiding gun owner is going to become psychotic. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Barry-NJ A US NAVY VETERAN lost his life by taking on the Colorado shooter barehanded [grabbed weapon]. You mean to tell me if he had a gun he could not have been effective?

vwterry A criminal shoots indiscriminately, A Non criminal shoots discriminately.

Rick-546746

permit ot not...brandish a gun around me in public

Rick you and 43 people that voted for you must have read a different article.

OVERREACTING and missing details. Imagine what this article would have read like if RICK would have written it.

Weapon brandishing Asian caused stampede from theater and forcing LAW Enforcement to smash Asian to the ground.

When are these stupid people going to realise that if a person is going to kill someone there is not a da*n thing the police or anyone else can do about it. This man was attempting to protect himself, that is his right. If he had gone to management and informed them he was attending the movie and that he was armed they would have still called the police. The cops usually cannot prevent a murder they can only intervene after the fact and hopefully take out the murderer before he/she kills them. You do not need a gun to commit mass murder, if you do not believe that read about the women and children hacked to death in Darfur with machetes. The only possible deterent to a mass murderer is a citizen who is armed and the criminal does not know it. The police cannot protect you from this happening. You had better be able to protect you and your family yourself. The only cure for a murderer and a child sexual predator is execution.

VWTerry: Again, this is a confusion from those who want gun control. I don't carry so I can go Clint Eastwood in a movie theater. I carry to protect myself and my family. We would try to remove ourselves from the situation. If not possible then find a section where we feel more secure (say behind the seats) and try to secure others as well. then I would watch the shooter very closely. It is IF he approaches to where I have a good shot is when I would shoot. No, I would not shoot from 50 feet away and doubt others who carry would either. Anybody familiar with a handgun knows you really only have true accuracy from 10 - 15 feet away.

However, WHEN the shooter moves up to our area and turns a weapon towards my family or I then I want something in my hands besides a bucket of popcorn and a box of Good & Plenty's. You see this is where we differ. You think it appropriate that I should be forced to coward behind a seat and wait for my turn to be shot but I disagree. Every citizen has the right to protect themselves and when properly trained and practiced we know when we can and cannot get a good shot in. I am never going to be in a situation where I must wait for my turn to be executed. Sorry, that is not going to happen.

Newswinner did you even READ the article??? He IS a lawyer... he didn't need to call a lawyer to ask for help or advice...he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. If a cop tells you to get OFF the phone and answer questions you DO it. Geeez, that's just common sense. I have a feeling this guy has a case coming up involving the 2nd amendment or guns...and that's why he did this... just ammunition for his case.

Agree 100%, and would like to add, do you think the person who comes down there with the intent to kill as many people as they can before they are killed will read that sign that says no weapons allowed and return them back to their car. What a crock. No one should carry a weapon unless they are trained in how to use it and what to do in a situtation where they had to use it.

Is searching everyone in a movie theater legal? I don't know too much about law myself, but I would certainly not cooperate with police searching me for legally going to see a movie either. I would have done nothing wrong, therefore a search of my persons would be illegal unless I agreed to it right?

Why should he have to get off the phone though Tz? Did the police even have a right to search, should you have to agree to a pat down for watching a movie, while otherwise no law was being broken?

Pro,

Where did I say I wanted more or less gun control? All I asked is how, in a state of confusion and chaos, would one decide who to shoot? I have friends who work in law enforcement and even they have a problem with this scenario, so how does a person not trained to deal with the split second decision making process handle it? It very well may be that you are the exception with a natural born ability to dissect the scene and make only the right decision but what about the guy that's got the permit but not the instinct? It's legal for him to have the gun so he's not breaking any laws but he could still make tragic choices in the midst of confusion. Insinuating that all legal permit carrying gun owners are thus able is ignoring reality. That flys in the face of all of the accidental shooting incidences that occur annually. "In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries." NY Times

My question remains.

Barry-NJ "The gunman in Aurora was wearing heavy-duty armor." being shot with armor on considering the concealable weapon possibilities would still feel like being hit really hard with an aluminum bat. Temporary incapacitation. An opportunity for further strategy.

I would not be uncooperative and in fact quite the opposite.

This is what makes you a naive little puppy. Let me break it down for you. If the police give him a lawful order and he disobeys them then they can arrest him. That's where the resisting arrest charge comes in. Many of these lawful orders are mundane and the people that get arrested for resisting do so because the cop startles them by arresting them. Because the resisting is more serious then let's say a cop saying 'move along' the only charge is resisting. Obviously here, there wasn't any lawful order so they pulled this crappy charge out. We don't know the details except the police do admit he didn't break the law. It sounds like the police broke the law by infringing on his rights. It seems from the details he did show his permit so how was he not cooperating? Maybe they wanted him to do something he legally doesn't have to do. What if everyone in the theater had a gun and a permit? Would the cops say enjoy the show?

Pro,

I also hope you and your family will never need to test your theory.

How would anyone know you had a pistol in a holster in the small of your back? When you enter the theater, you normally get some snacks then go sit in your seat. You normally wear a jacket or a long shirt to cover your weapon. This guy must have been at his seat pretending he was Wyatt Earp, doing some gun spinning tricks for several people to notice he was carrying.

Connecticut is not a traditional open carry state.
Outside of your own residence or place of business, a permit is required to
carry. The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed
carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

.... this guy is a lawyer, has a permit to carry and never actually brandished it. I think many here are perverting the incident for their own reasons. I dont think hew did anything wrong and its the police that are pushing the truth of what happened to its limits, dont belive for a moment he was uncooperative at all, but attempting to explain situation and defend his right to have and carry his weapon.

As a 2nd amendment "right" to own and and as a legal pistol permit holder to carry ... I dont need your approval or your permission to carry where ever I choose.

@XDm9mm

Check out the Springfield Armory EMP

It's a sweet and extremely accurate 1911 I picked one of these when they first came out 8) & I can only say great things about Springfield Armory.. I sent the 1911 EMP back to them via fedex and they returned it tuned and polished with a few extra mags for free.

This story shows to me that the cops overreacted by searching every patron WTF is that crap 8( The man did not break any laws & not being cooperative well who is to say we were not there who knows how much the story is being embellished by the media.

When you need a police officer they are usually 3 to 5 minutes or longer depending on the area.

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I have lived long enough to see the Evil in the world.

If it wasn't for my firearm I would not be typing this message today 8) I would have died pathetically by gangsters looking for an easy mark.

I have to add for holsters a SOB is not the best choice try a IWB much better 8)

". If someone was carrying in Aurora, I bet there would have been a lot less deaths...."

LOL or he may have shot someone other than the shooter.

If you don't have enough sense to not pull your gun in a theater full of panicked people or point it at a shooter with automatic weapons wearing body armor then you shouldn't be carrying.

Chances are they would just be dead also.

ProBusiness

It is IF he approaches to where I have a good shot is when I would shoot. No, I would not shoot from 50 feet away and doubt others who carry would either. Anybody familiar with a handgun knows you really only have true accuracy from 10 - 15 feet away.

Are you kidding me? You don't think that people will shoot from 50 feet away?

If everyone had a gun, that movie theater would turn into a giant shooting gallery... because everyone would think they are f***ing Dirty Harry, coming to save the day.

See, here is the problem. Let's say you and your family are in a theater, and a psycho opens fire. You think you are going to be the big, tough hero guy. So you jump up, yell "yippie kay-ay, mother f***er" and start shooting the original shooter. At this point, I see one guy shooting, and then another, in a dark theater. Flashes of Columbine and Aurora come to mind, and I assume you are working with the shooter to kill everyone. So, in turn, I shoot you... because I believe you are a psycho killer. You naturally start shooting back. Someone else now see's three shooters, can not tell who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy", so they open fire on all of us. Another person joins in, and another, and another... soon the entire place erupts into a shooting gallery. Because EVERYONE is trying to "protect" themselves from a "guy with a gun".

The problem that YOU do not realize is that you are carrying a gun for protection... but the rest of the world assumes you are a psycho killer looking to start the next shooting spree. I don't care if you have your family with you, kids, whatever... I see your gun, I assume you are an immediate threat and a killer, and I have the right to protect myself from YOU.

So the question that everyone is ignoring is: How do we distinguish between the real psycho killers, and people like you who have delusions of being the next action movie star? When someone starts shooting, and someone like you also pulls a gun, how do we know that you are not working with the original shooter? In turn, if you see two people pull guns, how do you know they are not working together? Which one do you shoot first? Do you wait until they point a gun at you?

Unfortunately there is no right answer. That is why LEO wear uniforms or announce themselves, because they KNOW that people react out of fear when they see a gun, so the uniform and announcement lets the surrounding public know who is protecting them. You don't have a uniform, so how does the next guy know that YOU are not a killer? I would ask how you would feel if you shot an innocent in the mayhem, but we already know the answer to that.

He set the cops up, plain and simple. He carried, he knew they would over react and breach his civil rights. He isn't just some lawyer, he is going to be the president of the Bar Association.

The charges will not survive, and he will probably file suit against the police department.

The Cops screwed up by making accusations against someone who knows the law.

Charle7834, people don't "go psychotic" just like that. If that were the case, we'd have to worry about the chef at the local restaurant maybe "going psychotic" & attacking waitstaff & customers alike w/ a meat cleaver. You know how bratty kids can be; why, who could blame a school bus driver for "going psycho" & using the bus to go after them. Nothing like a 2 ton Bluebird barrelling toward them to show to show those kids who's boss.

A lot of psychotics aren't violent, anyway. Most are rather withdrawn into their own little worlds & don't interact much in our reality.

XDm9mm, we keep a Glock 17 as one of our house guns & like it very much, but if I ever do get a CCW, I'll be using my Baikal Makarov ( 9mmMak ). I know, it sounds like an odd choice, but I shoot well w/ it & it's small, in the neighborhood of a Walther PP.

Hey mguy-478

... with the childish mindset and weird imagination you have, its people like you that need to stay the hell away from any gun. People like myself have been around guns all my life and as a former military member am trained to use and care for weapons ..... just because you are unwilling to grow up and deal with reality, dont talk down to and bad about the rest of us.

... you are a coward and its people like me that exist to prtect people like you .... time to grow a pair

... your a goof..... show me where you have that "right" ??

My "right" is outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution .... purhaps you should get familiar with it in its entirety.

this is ridiculous ... the man is licensed to carry in the state , idk how CT does it but most permits that i have seen including my own PA permit are for Carry there is nothing specifying that it must be concealed in fact after a bit of reading on my end i find that open carry is permitted in CT provided the person is licensed to carry ... so that said this man did nothing wrong , this is just another example of police harassing a law abiding citizen for exercising his constitutional rights like the guy in Philly who was arrested for open carry after the police found out they were in the wrong for arresting him they attacked him with other make believe charges to balance out their mistake ... the lawyer in this story is not an idiot cause he chose to carry his weapon, it doesnt imply he is playing cowboy or looking to be a tough guy he is simply doing what he feels he needs to do in order to be safe , he has taken the necessary steps to abide by the law and should not be harassed because people are insecure and uneducated regarding firearms and the laws surrounding them ... gun owners are not the problem here people , our problem is within the society ... how many articles can you recall reading where the shooter in some crime was licensed to carry i am not saying that it has never happened but the issues in our society , the crime the violence the random shootings are not a result of gun owners and taking away the rights of the citizens to carry or own will not prevent the problem just like making drugs illegal does not stop the flow of drugs into the country ... just a thought

@ProBusiness

When carrying with a concealed weapons permit the first requirement is it must stay concealed. This is understandable since there are many who get freaked out by the sight of a gun. So allowing it to be seen broke the rules for carry concealment. Of course the second, being uncooperative, was stupid as well.

WRONG! Connecticut allows OPEN carry for anyone with a permit to carry concealed so he didn't break any rules whatsoever. The laws vary from state to state, I'd suggest you actually check what the laws are before you make any claims regarding them.

If I have a permit to carry, and you don't, and you feel threatened by my ability to LEGALLY carry a firearm, and you decide I threaten you just by carrying (LEGALLY) a firearm, and you decide to take action and get yourself SHOT by me ( a legal, permitted citizen), who would the law side with? I bet I would be home for dinner and you , well you get the picture!!!!

@mguy-478

The problem that YOU do not realize is that you are carrying a gun for protection... but the rest of the world assumes you are a psycho killer looking to start the next shooting spree.

The rest of the world? Ummm, no. Not everyone suffers from paranoia and an irrational fear of guns. When I see someone carrying a concealed weapon I assume they are doing nothing other than expressing their 2nd Amendment right. This may be hard for you to grasp, given your phobia, but "psycho killers" are an extremely rare thing.

I don't care if you have your family with you, kids, whatever... I see your gun, I assume you are an immediate threat and a killer, and I have the right to protect myself from YOU.

No you don't. You have the right to protect yourself from a legitimate threat and if you think any judge is going to accept delusional paranoia as a defense you're nuts.

Aside from that your posts make it pretty clear that by "defending yourself" you mean knocking down women and children in your rush to flee.

mguy-478 the constitution doesnt protect your right to feel this way or that ... however it does protect my right to keep and bear arms ... if you want to entrust your life and safety to the systems that have been put in place to protect you (Police , government etc ) that is your prerogative but some of us would rather be able to defend ourselves rather than wait for an ambulance ... i understand that in the world we live in that people are nuts and there are to many unstable people with guns bent on doing bad things but those people should not be confused with the rest of us who are law abiding citizens just trying to protect ourselves and our families from the same fears you have !!!

I love it idea of police protection, or should I say the illusion of police protection. Police didn't save the people in colorado because they weren't there. In fact most of the time, when a crime such as that is going down the police aren't there.

The police enforce laws, their primary purpose is not to protect you personally.

The weak willed people who like to speak against guns are simply unwilling to take responsibility to protect themselves. But they are the first to cry "where were the police" when something happens.

They sit terrified of anyone with a gun because they know deep down they aren't able to deal with a threat to themselves by their own ability and instead live hoping that someone else will always protect them.

I do not think that he put any ones life in danger in fact if something would of happened he might of saved someones life. To the person who said he thought he might bed in danger because he saw the weapon then you must be scared everytime you see a cop. Now granted most cops are good just like most people are good but remember a cop is just another person with the same problems as the rest of the public

i hope he sues the @!$%# out of them for violating his 2nd admendment rights ! he had a permit and he has the right to carry ,as he has the right to carry it to and from the theater ! the cops shouldn't have carried there guns into the theater then either,they don't have more rights then a law abliding citizen !

BP-2252891". If someone was carrying in Aurora, I bet there would have been a lot less deaths...."

LOL or he may have shot someone other than the shooter.

If you don't have enough sense to not pull your gun in a theater full of panicked people or point it at a shooter with automatic weapons wearing body armor then you shouldn't be carrying.

It wasn't an automatic weapon and...

DA: Shooting of Malden bank robber justified
AP / August 9, 2012

WOBURN, Mass. (AP) — The Middlesex district attorney's office has determined that five police officers were justified in opening fire on a bank robbery suspect who died of gunshot wounds to the head.

The district attorney said in a statement Thursday that the officers from Saugus and Malden ''were in imminent danger of being shot'' and therefore were justified in using deadly force against William Ekasala, one of three men accused of robbing a Malden bank on March 23.

Authorities say Ekasala wore body armor and a mask when he and another man robbed the bank of $4,900. A third man is accused of being the getaway driver.

The investigation determined that Ekasala tried to or succeeded in carjacking three vehicles, endangering six civilians. He also fired several shots at pursuing officers.

NC homeowner fatally shoots intruder wearing body armor
Posted: Dec 23, 2011
LITTLETON, N.C. (AP) - A North Carolina sheriff is looking for the crooks that got away after a drug-related home invasion led to a shootout that left one man dead despite the body armor he was wearing.

Three armed men burst into a home in the Halifax County town of Littleton on Wednesday night.

Sheriff's Lt. Bobby Martin says the home's resident fired back, killing 20-year-old Ricardo Harley and wounding a second intruder. He faces first-degree burglary and other charges.

Martin says the robbery was drug-related but gave no other details.

He said the resident was protecting himself and his home and will not be charged.

The third intruder and a fourth robber who waited outside the home got away and are being sought.

FBI: 2 of 3 Slain Officers Wore Body Armor
May 14, 2012 |

Two out of every three law enforcement officers who were killed in 2011 were wearing body armor, according to preliminary data released by the FBI today.

Of the 72 victim officers, 49 were wearing body armor at the times of their deaths, according to the FBI. The data was released as a preview of the FBI's annual "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted" report, which arrives in the fall.

In 2011, 72 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty. That number was 16 more than the 56 officers slain in 2010.

Of these 72 deaths, 19 officers were killed during ambushes (14 during unprovoked attacks and five due to entrapment situations); five were slain while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances; 11 were killed during traffic pursuits or stops; five of the fallen officers interrupted robberies in progress or were pursuing robbery suspects; and four died while responding to disturbance calls.

so much for the body armor.

@Howard rock ,the word "POLICE" means "peace keeper",but they hardly keep the peace ,instead they just harrass the public with mostly stupid laws that politicians put on the books that have nothin to do with keeping the peace the word "POLICE" IS SO MISUSSED as is the word "POLITICALLY CORRECT" another misused word as the politics are suppose to listen to us and we "correct" them ,they twisted it so that they dictate what to tell us what to do politically correct is so incorrect !!!

@Bassai ,body armour don't work well if a headshot is taken ! :P

Approximately 5.3 million registered felons in the USA
Approximately 7 million concealed carry permits in the USA
How many non convicted criminals in USA? How many criminals walk out of court no convictions? I mean the numbers are staggering and points to who you should really fear.

Gianni

i understand that in the world we live in that people are nuts and there are to many unstable people with guns bent on doing bad things but those people should not be confused with the rest of us who are law abiding citizens just trying to protect ourselves and our families from the same fears you have !!!

Ok, I am going to try to be respectful here. You have completely missed my point.

First, I am NOT against guns. Far from it. I own them, and I will pump you or anyone so full of bullets that your own mother will not recognize you, if you threaten my life or the life of my loved ones. Actually there are other means of defense I prefer, due to less legal ramifications and red tape... but that is besides the point.

Second, I clearly stated that there is "no right answer". So I am not arguing for or against gun control, I am explaining the over-arching problem that allude so many gun-freaks. They fail to see the big picture. Again... I am NOT against guns. (Something tells me you will still think I am)

Third, the problem I was explaining is the problem that police officers face every day. In a nut shell, it is: when faced with multiple armed citizens, how do you know who is safe and who is a threat. We have seen single-shooter incidents, and multiple-shooter incidents. So, as a citizen, how do YOU react.

I will make this simple for you. You are in a dark theater, just like Colorado. Someone opens fire. Another person opens fire. It is dark, you see two people shooting, and it is hard to tell where they are firing. You are armed. Are they working together? Is one a danger while the other is safe? How do you know? Who do you shoot? If someone else joins in, what do you do? Bullets are flying, and your family is in danger... who do you shoot?

This is something that cops deal with every day. Arrive at a location with multiple armed people firing weapons. What do police officers do in those situations?

AGAIN... read my first point. Then read my second point. I... AM... NOT... AGAINST... GUNS. (Jesus Christ, I know some Republican idiot will jump on here and completely miss those points.)

The amount of fail in these posts are ridiculous. From both carriers and anti-gun nuts.

You can openly carry a weapon in CT with a licence.

VA is a huge open carry state and arguably where the current open carry movement started.

TX it is illegal to open carry a handgun.

Officers have one of the safest jobs in the country they aren't even in the top ten for death rates.

People work odd hours and sometimes they have to go to a late movie if they actually want to experience it in a theater.

Right now a batman movie IS the place to carry because of the concern of copy cat killers

The person(s) that caused the disturbance were the officers and the person that reported it.

He did nothing illegal and this article show now reason to believe he was really uncooperative.

Police can't willy-nilly charge someone with a crime just because they don't like what you're doing without violating the law themselves. (usually called official corruption. Your state may vary)

When scenarios were tested and in real life observations it is very rare that cross shooting or accidental shootings happen (NBC even found that in their flawed VT scenarios conducted with shooters whose only experience with a real gun was that very day)

I think instead of making up wild stories people should google and educate themselves before opening their mouths.

and interesting enough, police and the department of security have made it clear now in a video.. You have to fight when you have no choice. I don't know about you but instead of grabbing a fire extinguisher vs. an armed guy I'd prefer a firearm.

http://www.wset.com/story/19220158/movie-aims-to-teach-safety-in-an-active-shooter-scenario?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7589620

Hey Ownedbyfew, and how many of those felons are drug offenders like pot smokers? probably at least 5 million would be my bet. Ooh wow weed users are soooooo scary and violent. If you want to be an idiot and act like felons shouldn't get their 2nd ammendment rights, then I say you shouldn't get the first ammendment because you have said stupid things in the past and therefore you shouldn't have the right to free speech.

Excellent post Ted 8) I couldn't have said it better.

What's wrong with people and their common sense?

After what has happened recently, and with the other idiots who think it's funny (or for whatever reason) to pretend to start trouble after the fact, you damn well better be checking people as they go in. Both sides had a right to be cautious, but the lawyer should have known better when it came to cooperating.

I don't carry...yet. I am trying to find out what a first timer should get when buying a gun. (I am in Alabama...I am a woman, but don't want to carry UNTIL I know what I should get, and, of course, take all the safety and law classes I need...can any of the RESPONSIBLE owners here make any suggestions?), but if I am in a theater and I see someone's holster showing underneath and a gun in it, you bet I will tell someone.

No, If I didn't see it, I wouldn't know about it, so what's the difference you may ask? Well, I do know enough that if you ARE a responsible shooter, you don't go around bragging about what you're carrying. Also, IF you have a gun on your person and you are licensed for it, whena cop holds a gun on YOU (assuming he doesn't know you from the guy in Colorado or anyone else) and tells you to put your @!$%#ing phone down and come out into the aisle with your hands up, PROBABLY because he doesn't KNOW the gun is licensed AND that you may NOT be a responsible owner, you do it, dumb ass.

Just because you have a license to carry a concealed weapon, doesn't mean that license gives you the right to be stupid. You think it's a sign of weakness or cowardice to not do what the cops tell you to because you may think you're a big man (or woman)? Nope, it just means you're stupid..

mguy-478

Not a phobia, I have guns myself... to protect myself from YOU, and people like YOU. See, I don't trust you. So I have a right to protect myself from YOU. As far as I know, you are some back country hick that drinks too much, watches NASCAR, and f***s his sister. Am I supposed to blindly trust that you, armed with a weapon, pose no threat? You don't know anyone in law enforcement, do you?

You don't have any right to protect yourself from me unless I am threatening you. The fact that you see me as a threat just because I am armed is YOUR problem and gives you absolutely NO right to protect yourself from me. The very idea is asinine and CLEARLY indicates a phobia on your part.

So if I see a man shooting a gun, that is NOT a "legitimate threat"? Seriously?

Oh so now the person has to be actually firing the gun, is that a sudden correction of your stance or do you just like to make broad generalized statements to get a reaction out of people?

Do you wait until you are actually hit with a bullet before firing back?

For the record, I've been shot at, it's really not all that hard to tell who is shooting at you and who is shooting at the person who is shooting at you. If you seriously lack the ability to make simple judgements at a moments notice you should stay the hell away from guns. I support the right to carry firearms but I'm not stupid enough to believe that everyone should or even has the mental capacity to do so. Please leave your guns in your home.

And regarding police, you've heard the term "plain-clothed police" right? How about "undercover"? You understand that many officers carry when they're off duty right? WTF do you think is going to happen to you when you shoot an off duty officer who is attempting to prevent a crime? You think the judge is going to accept your excuse of "well he might have been some back country hick who @!$%#s his sister so I shot him"? Just remember not to bend over in the shower after you get to prison.

See, I don't trust you. So I have a right to protect myself from YOU. As far as I know, you are some back country hick that drinks too much, watches NASCAR, and f***s his sister.

You know what, maybe you don't have a phobia, maybe you assume everyone else is a wannabe "f***ing Dirty Harry, coming to save the day" because that is your own attitude. Delusional paranoia either way.

He got the carry part right but he earned a "F" for the concealed part of "his exercise". He was looking to get a response from the police (possibly a lawsuit/court case) and he got it. Exactly how does one sit in a movie theater comfortably for two hours with a gun and holster in the small of your back?

Newswinner101 I am against failed prohibition. Is that your point?

Gotta agree with Ted 100% on this one. Good, logical post. Too bad you're going to get flamed now because you're disagreeing with the popular opinion of the day.

"Those that think Colorado could have been stopped if a person or persons had guns in that theatre are nuts. All that would have caused is more deaths as no one would have known who the real perp was"

I think Colorado Batman shooter would have been an easy one to spot. He was probably the only fool in the theater dressed in body armor, head gear, carrying multiple weapons and shooting people.

So he was arrested even though he broke no laws?

This case should be plastered everywhere.

People want rights for gays. I am not opposed let them marry who they wish.

Women want the right to choose. I am not opposed it is not my body or my child they are carrying.

But those same people want to take away THE fundamental right that guarantees that all other rights will be protected.

Why sheeple are like that amazes me.

God Bless the second amendment and good luck with the law suit counselor.

VWTerry: I agree with you it would be difficult in the confusion to have multiple people pull weapons but my hope is they do not just start "shooting" and try to evaluate the situation. And most people I know who "carry" understand the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun. We don't know for sure how a carry person will react but, again, I would much rather have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it. I also agree with you and pray that I never need to test my theory too..........

Backcountry: I stand corrected. I didn't realize Connecticut was an open carry state (I wish Florida was:)!!). Sorry for the error and thanks for clarifying that.

Alright Ownedbyfew, I misunderstood your comment...I thought that you meant that someone who committed a felony shouldn't have the 2nd ammendment. Sorry...

Newswinner101 I do not think people who display a illogical justified disrespect for human life should have firearms.

Really Owned? So even if someone is 100% rehabilitated they should still be penalized for something that they did years and years ago? Wouldn't they still be in prison if they did have callous disregard for human life?

My statement is broad in that it includes people who display a illogical justified disrespect for human life to professionals before a crime is committed. If they are rehabilitated, I think those people react well to forgiveness. Dignity is earned and when taken from you it is respected.

Newswinner101

Hey Ownedbyfew, and how many of those felons are drug offenders like pot smokers?

I SERIOUSLY wish people would do a little (read any) research before making such broad brush statements. 47% of the 1.5 million prisoners in the USA are violent offenders, and 22% are drug (all drugs not just mj) related.

Please take your drug (marihuana) debate elsewhere.. Guns and Drugs don't mix well.

Ted-803281

I might be mistaken but I strongly suggest you NOT try to open carry in either Virginia or Texas, at least with a handgun.

It will likely get you arrested very quickly.

Oh... I have a resident carry permit in one and a non-resident in the other. Yeah, even though they have reciprocity.

You are incredibly mistaken! It is 100% legal and often done in VA and even norther VA. Its called the VCDL. Look it up.

also here is a huge picnic and OC dinner outlet.

In VA if you were in a restaurant that sells alcohol you had to open carry by law!You had to open carry there or YOU WOULD have gone to jail.

that law was overturned

http://www.vcdl.org/

Regarding concealed carry in restaurants ... "The law was a victory for the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization that makes the NRA look moderate."
Eleanor Clift - - Politics Daily - July 5, 2010

educate yourself because you're pro-gun and yet your misinforming people big time.

Here's a web site for you, stop posting and start reading.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?130-Virginia

And be clear it is illegal to open carry in Texas it is 100% not illegal in VA except in state parks (cc works there for now or unless that law was recently overturned and I am unaware of it).

Virginia is a huge open carry state and probably the largest open carry state in the union.

If I read the article correctly, "several" people saw his weapon. I carry concealed in my state, and I suspect occasionally if I reach for a shelf in the store or stop to tie my shoe my weapon could be outlined by my shirt; maybe even a tiny bit of the holster leather peeks out. But no way can someone be sitting in a theatre seat and "several" people see a properly concealed weapon. Sounds like stupidity on the part of the permit holder. It almost implies that he intentionally allowed people to see that he was carrying.

What the article doesn't point out is the number of people with legal concealed carry in theatres, and no one ever knows they are armed. That's the whole idea behind concealed carry. There are several business establishments that I regularly visit while carrying. I have no reason to believe any of them have ever suspected I am carrying. That's how it's supposed to be.

Correction. VA overturned the open carry ban in state parks about a year ago. You can open carry there too.. Read and learn took me 10 minutes to find the facts via google.

Washington post did an article on it in 2004 for god sakes.

Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va.
'Exercising Right' Called 'Unreasonable' by Some

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 15, 2004; Page A01

On July 2, Fairfax County police received a 911 call from a Champps restaurant in Reston. Six men are seated at a table, the caller said. They're all armed....

Turns out, packing a pistol in public is perfectly legal in Virginia. And three times in the last month, including at Champps on Sunset Hills Road, residents have been spotted out and about in the county, with guns strapped to their hips, exercising that right.

In the first episode, at a Starbucks, Fairfax police wrongly confiscated weapons from two college students and charged them with a misdemeanor. Police realized their mistake, returned the guns and tore up the charges the next day.

Police commanders have since issued a reminder to officers that "open carry" is the law of the land in the Old Dominion.

There isn't an officer in VA that doesn't know that open carry is perfectly legal. Don't carry with a 20 round magazine unless you have a permit though.

I have no idea where you're getting your nonsense from but smack that person in the face.

@cynic2012 - yeah right - that is why the majority of people applying for cc permits state it is for personal protection - they are worried something might happen to them as you and I stated - #%$@ happens remember?

Denial? LOL I think the only point you can see is the one on the end of your nose.

Is it legal for police to search movie goers on a probable cause that someone might have a gun that could be legal or illegal? I'm assuming they didn't have a warrant, and if they did does the warrant have to state everyone in the theater like a normal search warrant would?

I asked this earlier, haven't seen any informed responses. I can't find the information myself, so if anyone knows law it would be cool to know.

It doesn't seem right from the article, but it could be legal. I guess if it is that is kind of scary that you can be searched just for watching a movie.

I'm staying home and waiting for on demand. I don't want to be in the theaters with these yahoos carrying weapons !

This guy had every right to carry a concealed weapon to protect himself. The police will not be there to protect you 95% of the time when you need them. The Aurora shooting confirms this. Police arrived there within 90 seconds and by that time it was over with 70 people being shot. Holmes had already discarded his AR-15, gas mask and whatever else and was about to get in his car and drive away when the police finally got to him.

The police in New Haven are totally inept at stopping crime. New Haven is the 4th most dangerous city in the country. If the police could keep the city relatively safe maybe a lot of people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves. They looked like clowns making EVERYONE in the theater march out with their hands up and then being searched. Sound like the useless TSA policies where everyone is a suspected terrorist.

And just to set the record straight for the people who were arguing that once his gun was in view by the public he was breaking the concealed carry law, this is a definition of concealed carry by US legal.com.

62.1-04-01. Definition of concealed. A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby. There is no requirement that there be absolute invisibility of the firearm or dangerous weapon, merely that it not be ordinarily discernible.

Too many people are scared little rabbits when it comes to weapons and I agree with Sigmund Freud when he wrote:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

@Jonathan F: Your argument is tautologous. If it's not for defense, it's for offense, and CHL owners statistically do not use it for offense--out of hundreds of thousands of owners in Texas, for instance, only a half-dozen murders since the program started. What I am responding to is your insinuation that CHL owners carry in order to "feel" secure. That's a presumption: I carry in order to act when threatened. A gun no more makes me "feel" secure than carrying a swiss army knife makes me feel like a carpenter.

XDm9mm

James-546195-1049965

Who goes there at ANY TIME???? Do you have a death wish or just making a supply run to the local dealer?

Um..that's where the Nationals Stadium is and Eastern Market is you moron. At least learn the area before making a stupid comment. These areas are fine during the day...at night, not so much.

Maybe for the same reason people still fly after 9-11 they refuse to give in to terrorist

People not going to the movies would be giving into fear and a terrorist. Picking a WISE time to go to the theater due to an unsafe neighborhood is completely different.

Your logic is F-A-I-L

@William Bentley

Is it legal for police to search movie goers on a probable cause that someone might have a gun that could be legal or illegal?

It is absolutely 100% legal for the police to do whatever they want as long as you AGREE to it. Most people simply don't realize that they can say no when a police officer asks them to do something.

@!$%#...there is a uhaul outside my office, I bet there is a bomb in it....that f'n McVeigh!!! And about police being able to search whoever whenever is a complete fallacy!!! We have rights, use them!!!

denver bill 2

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't publicize the fact that you have lunatics as "friends".... it might make people think twice about YOUR mental state.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. No offense meant!!

I heard his problem was that he didn't put two bombs in his luggage because the astronomical improbability of there being three bombs would have prevented him from being blown up as he was.

XDm9mm

denver bill 2

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't publicize the fact that you have lunatics as "friends".... it might make people think twice about YOUR mental state.

Too late. People already wonder about my mental state.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. No offense meant!!

None taken. I'm one of not many posters here who can actually distinguish between vitriol and humor.

I like it Denver Bill.

denver bill 2

I DO hope that you got a little chuckle out of it!!

Have a great day!!

d bill are you da bomb when you step on the plane? or does it take a few drinks?

Winner of the internet today....

after Colorado, not the smartest thing to do; but, if he has a CW permit, the law in that state does not prohibit carry into a public place, grocery, movie, building, park, bus or shopping mall. resting arrest is overused, If you do not immediately respond it can be considered resisting arrest; however, the arrest must first be a valid arrest, since he was violating no law or ordinance, then resiting arrest will not hold.

Connecticut is not a traditional open carry state.
Outside of your own residence or place of business, a permit is required to
carry. The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed
carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

it is the smartest thing to do. I have a gun, I know I ain't opening fire on a theater. What i don't klnow is if someone else will try. Of course logic tends to escape anti-gun nuts.

Rick-546746

Care to specify what laws he broke, other than the police claim of being "uncooperative"?

It's because of the *what ifs* that some of us carry. We could play that game all day.

Gun crazies? Some of you gun haters, if and WHEN the chit hits the fan, will go and coddle up to your gun loving neighbors !

I have a suggestion to all you gun haters, how bout just enforcing the laws already on the books ! Like the guy down the street, ex-con TWICE, owns about 12-14 pistols/rifles/shotguns, and the local cops KNOW this. They're at his house bout every week on calls of domestic abuse, public drunk, etc. .

THAT'S the kind of reasons I 'carry'.

Yeah, I'll just be sitting in my chair waiting for that moment when I think I'm going to love living next to my gun toting neighbor...you can just wait over there for that to happen too.

If anyone takes a shot at me, I'll just casually reach for my pistol and start shooting back, because bullets move at only what speed, supersonic or close, so I'll know it is on its way before I get hit. That will deter him. You betcha.

He broke no law unless there is some kind of penalty for not properly CONCEALING his weapon. Sort of like yelling, "FIRE" in a crowded theater - it could have caused a panic situation or gotten him shot by another legally carrying person - and I hate to say this, but Hwang is most likely Asian American so a non Asian might see him as a foreign terrorist threat.

He is a lawyer so he should have known better OR he is looking to make a statement.

Should have known better? He didn't break any laws!!! The only law broken was the officers making up a petty charge to bring him downtown.

Rick-546746

Yeah, what if your mother was a pink elephant, what then?

If anyone takes a shot at me, I'll just casually reach for my pistol and start shooting back, because bullets move at only what speed, supersonic or close, so I'll know it is on its way before I get hit. That will deter him. You betcha.

I think I might have missed the joke in this, if there was a joke haha.

I think it's quite interesting that they interrupted the movie to search everyone in the theater. In fact, I feel that most likely that was against the law. One, if they had to get a warrant in those circumstances don't you have to list the person you're going to search? So by searching everyone did they somehow mess that up?

Two , without a warrant don't they need probable cause that a crime is being committed. Would someone accidently seeing his concealed weapon constitute a probable cause for a crime? Instead wouldn't it seem natural to assume first he had a permit, and that they needed more evidence for probable cause?

Don't know too much about law, but it just feels like the police did something backwards here. I certainly know I wouldn't cooperate with police wanting to search me for no reason other than going to a movie.

First, yes, I am licensed to carry a loaded weapon, and second - yes I do - every day even to my office. No one there is in the least intimidated by it. We also have at least one other person (female if it matters) who is awaiting her license right now.

Like XDm9mm said about VA and TX, Oklahoma also requires that you carry concealed, which also means not letting the "print" or outline of the weapon show through your clothing. We must also always announce to any Law Enforcement officer in an "official" meeting such as this lawyer had or even in a routine traffic stop that we are armed and have a license. Oklahoma also requires background checks at the local County, the State and Federal levels before a license is issued, along with mandatory completion of a legal/safety class unless you are in a couple of special groups who have obviously already had the training, such as Law Enforcement and/or military.

Somehow I really have my doubts about this lawyer being uncooperative. If I, as a non-lawyer (and not even as someone who plays one on a daytime soap) know these rules so well, I'm sure he does. I think that was just a dodge on their part to give him more grief.

Upcoming changes to OK's rules: Beginning November 1, 2012 you may carry open if you have a concealed carry license. Personally I think carrying open is rather dumb (and mucho macho) on many levels, but at least it takes care of the accidental, momentary display of the weapon when it does catch on your clothes or the wind blows your coat open. Also, they are changing the announcement requirement from "must be the first thing out of your mouth" to "at the earliest reasonable point in time".

And yes, if I had attended the showing, I'd have gone armed, just as I went armed to the showing of the last of the Harry Potter series and many other movies before that. But if confronted by LE for any reason, I certainly would not have acted as stupidly as they claim this lawyer did.

Nobody can see a concealed pistol unless you make it obvious that you have a concealed weapon. This guy was calling attention to himself just to get his 15 minutes.

@BP the grape

Nobody can see a concealed pistol unless you make it obvious that you have a concealed weapon. This guy was calling attention to himself just to get his 15 minutes.

OR unless you're carrying a full sized pistol that simply does not conceal very well. But please don't let your utter lack of knowledge prevent you from sharing your opinion.

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

It is arguably where the current open carry movement started.

You are correct that OK and TX don't allow open carry of handguns.

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

@Ted-803281

VIRGINIA IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!

Out of curiosity, what exactly does this story have to do with Virginia?

A SOB holster has these types of issues & that is dependent on the garb he was wearing IWB holster FTW

@backcountry, NOTHING. however the replies kept saying in VA you have to carry concealed. You do not.

Yeah another idiot who didn't even read the article.

Connecticut is not a traditional open carry state.
Outside of your own residence or place of business, a permit is required to
carry. The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed
carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

It is part of the Legal Firearm Owner Genocide they are planning.

9mm

perhaps Hwang is making a statement - he appears to be a lawyer.

Like you said, should be interesting but we probably won't hear much more about it.

You are correct, mj (see mj's post below). There are PLENTY of things that are legal--but that does NOT make them moral.

Why were you collapsed? There's so many overly sensitive people on the vine, huh? Usually the same ones that complain about "political correctness!"

Have a great day

Now that they have a scapegoat lets see how "JUSTICE and the GUN LAWS" are applied in this case vs the real premeditated mass murderer who has many defenses and other people taking some hind sight blame by the media.

peacenik33472

9mm

perhaps Hwang is making a statement - he appears to be a lawyer.

Like you said, should be interesting but we probably won't hear much more about it.

Now if he would have fired a round off we would be hearing about it allot more. haha

@XDm9mm

A classic he said "they" said. An officer of the court, states he was cooperative. The police say he was uncooperative.

As they had no other charges possible, they charge the fall back uncooperative.

And I have to ask, why is it necessary for the Mayor and Police Chief to make a "statement" about "guns" in public places. That's why the man has a State issued carry permit. To be able to take a firearm into "public" places.

The reason they had to make a statement is simple. The arresting officers didn't realize the guy was a high profile lawyer and now the city understands they've stepped in it so they are trying to cover their asses.

According to the story, everyone else in the theater followed instructions and walked out with their hands above their heads and were frisked for weapons. This guy sat in his seat and talked on his cell phone.

If he is such an advocate for 2nd amendment rights, and knew he had the legal right to carry, he should have been first to address the police when they arrived. He should have spared all the other movie patrons the pat-down, and said "I'm carrying, here's my permit. I just brought the gun for my own protection."

By not cooperating, as every other law abiding citizen in the theater did, he brings suspicion upon himself. He either wanted attention, or perhaps he was considering doing something more sinister.

They didn't just arrest him. Twenty cops (20!) stormed the theater, no doubt dressed up in their SWAT gear, patted down every patron and forcibly arrested a man for legally carrying a gun. Meanwhile the real criminals and crazies roam free.

Since the cops said so.

WinWin4All

According to the officers story he was uncooperative.....

" he should have been first to address the police when they arrived."

Really? When cops storm the place he should have stood up, ran over to the cops, and yelled "I have a gun"? You can try that next time and then let us know how it went, genius.

I hope they really jacked him up while taking him down.

typical stupid reply..

Ok, so you're in a theater watching a late showing of Batman, and you see a guy with a gun in a holster come in and sit down in front of you. Are you going to tap him on the shoulder and ask if he has a permit? Are you going to question his intentions? And if his intentions are to randomly kill people, do you think he's going to tell you that? Or is he going to tell you that he brought it for his own protection?

winwin

I would calmly get up, inform the theater people, and ask for my $$ back. Let them handle it. I sure wouldn't hang around to see who's right or wrong.

WinWin,

That really isn't the argument here. The lawyer even said the patrons and employees did the right thing, he would have done the same thing. The issue, and argument, is the officers who said he did nothing illegal, made up a petty charge of being uncooperative, just to take the guy to jail.

All the management had to say, with an officer at their side, is that they would appreciate if you not carry a firearm in here, could you please remove it. That is how situations are supposed to be handled. The officers went crazy and made everyone in the movie theater put their hands up and exit the theater, creating chaos.

WinWin4All

If you don't know what to do in that situation, I advise you to never step out of your house. Not sure what neck of the woods you're from, but in most states, there are plenty of people who carry, even off duty officers. But those aren't the ones you should be worried about.

The overreaction on the police's part does not create an obligation on his part. No crime committed here.

Angry Guy, That is what annoys me the most about this story. The ridiculous police over-reaction has to be justified by charging the lawyer with something. He made the mistake of allowing his weapon to be seen. I am not certain how I would have responded to the TWENTY cops flooding the theater looking for a CRIMINAL. I would have to be very deliberate in any moves I made in order to avoid a nervous cop deciding to shoot me...

Please explain how anyone can see a pistol in a holster that is fitted to the small of your back, while seated??

The only way it could happen is if he un-holstered his weapon. What reason would he have to do that other then to call attention to himself?

He did not upholster the weapon ( or rather nothing indicates that he did) why don't you think for two second before you post. His shirt might have rode up, it might have been a white shirt and the black holster could be seen through it. None-the-less it's legal. There was a gross overreaction here by everyone but the guy they went after, who wasn't running around panicking, yelling and screaming.

The cops screwed this one up pretty bad.. The attorneys are going to eat them alive...

Connecticut is not a traditional open carry state.
Outside of your own residence or place of business, a permit is required to
carry. The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed
carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

Not following a policeman's lawful request is. They could have tasered him legally for not complying with their instructions. Everyone else did and no one else was arrested.

A cop isn't going to risk his life for a dumbass that won't comply with simple request ... put your hands up. The police have the responsibility to protect the others in the theater until they determine everything is ok. Suppose this guy pulled and started spraying the theater?? Would you then say the police should have asked for people to put their hands up?? Neither of us were there but I want law enforcement to err on safe side. It is a threat until it is proven to not be one.

Do I think he should have been arrested? Not if CT doesn't have a law against not concealing a weapon if you carry.

peacenik33472

It's a he said/he said issue. The lawyer said he complied with the officers demands. The officers said he was being uncooperative, but the officer first said he didn't do anything illegal, so....

He showed the officers his permit. If the theater asks him to not carry a firearm in there, then he would have to comply and put his gun in his vehicle.

The officers were in the wrong here, not the lawyer.

Sounds to me like he's going to fight it, and well he should. Cops were in the wrong; they forfeit their authority.

"The lawyer said".... really? He knows not to incriminate himself, he's basically paid to lie for a living and you are going to take his word over the police?

This will pan out to be a premeditated attempt for attention or civil litigation. The person he was talking to on the cell phone when he should have been following the police officers instruction was either the media or another lawyer.

I think they will find that the multiple persons who saw his gun/holster will testify that he appeared to be doing it on purpose wanting the police to be called so he could do this passive resistance and cause his own arrest for not complying with a lawful order. he went to the movie that just recently had a traumatic event to bolster the fear of the patrons and chose a late night showing so he could claim to have to carry for his protection because the danger in the city.

He was looking for a stage to make his statement, this was scripted and when it is proven by the police that he caused this incident on purpose, he will be arrested again and he can have his next news conference from custody.

As far as 20 officers responding, that's what you get with the information provided at what could be a critical incident.

THE COPS SAID HE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL.

and no, it doesn't matter if he did it on purpose. That's an old trick that never works. Cops put out bait cars and saying they did it on purpose wont do a damn thing to keep you out of jail.

Carrying a gun in a holster is not brandishing under any correct definition of the word. You're pursefully choosing to lie if you continue to use that word in that manner. So don't expect anybody to take you seriously.

Joe Scatone

Carrying a gun in a holster is not brandishing under any correct definition of the word. You're pursefully choosing to lie if you continue to use that word in that manner. So don't expect anybody to take you seriously.

tip toe on that one.... In most states deliberately displaying a holster, not even the gun, can result in brandishing charges... accidental display can also result in charges of inducing panic. As the guy from Kansas noted above... he can open carry all day but if he accidentally displays his concealed he could be charged... Philly is a place one can get really twisted over... PA has both open carry AND concealed Carry... except a "special" (read you aren't getting one) concealed carry is required in all "1st class cities" and if you open carry they will nail you on the inducing panic charge.

Seeing as we are all being word police, opening your coat to show the gun is brandishing. Flipping the back of his coat up so the people behind would see it, is brandishing. I have a feeling this guy was a little more obvious then the story lets on, afterall it does state that several people saw it and reported it.

He was carrying in the small of his back. The holster was probably seen when he was sitting down in his seat. That is not deliberately displaying.

You can't see someones backside while sitting in a theater. All the seat bottoms fold down so you can sit, so there is no gap from behind. Even when the theater lights are still on before the movie, you would not be able to see someones waist even if the lower seat back was open, because it is still dark and the seats are very low to the floor.

Also, it was reported this guy was sitting to the side where there were no seats behind him. The cops said it gave him a tactical advantage in being able to cover the entire theater with rounds without fear of being approached from behind.

You need to get your eyes checked. I have never been to a dark theater in my life. The place it always lit up from the screen and exit row lighting and what not.

I have a feeling he was sitting in that seat so idiots couldnt kick his seat during the movie., or it was the best available.

I love your imagination.

@Fricsaid

tlg....ok.....he displayed his weapon in the view of the public. Better? I think its semantics, but is that better? I chose the word "brandish" because of lot of people that carry a weapon like to flaunt it. I'm not saying all do that, but a lot do.

And you know this how? Personally I've NEVER seen someone "flaunting" a concealed weapon and I live in the state with the most permits issued per capita.

How about "Law-Abiding Citizens"

Just bob: BRILLIANT question! There is no militia called "law abiding citizens" BUZZZ!--but thanks for playing RA211.

BRILLIANT Bob! What well regulated militia did he belong to? Good good good question! Hope you don't mind if I plagiarize you in future?

ust bob

I wonder of which well regulated militia he is a member.

All able bodied males age 18-45 are members of the militia.

See also "Connecticut 1818: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in
defense of himself and the state.”"

So yes "Law abiding citizen" IS a valid response. Sorry WWJD999 but upon review the red flag from the sidelines says the first response was CORRECT.

WWJD999

Another mindless sheep, will follow anyone with candy.

trust_verify:

All able bodied males age 18-45 are members of the militia.

By what standard is that extremely broad group "well-regulated"?

Ash Plissken

trust_verify:

All able bodied males age 18-45 are members of the militia.

By what standard is that extremely broad group "well-regulated"?

The revolution and post revolution called all able bodied males 18-45 to arms. Also CT makes no mention of militia in their constitution.. only the citizens right to bear arms. Unlike FL which originally limited firearms to white male citizens of the state.

interesting handle any reference to escape from new york and related movies/books?

Connecticut is not a traditional open carry state.
Outside of your own residence or place of business, a permit is required to
carry. The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed
carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

My god morons..

Please learn the law before you spew it.

IT IS 17 NOT 18. and as for well regulated, congress tells us how much water we can use to flush our crap down the toilet, i'd say that's well regulated and if you aren't happy with how congress regulates you vote for someone that regulates you better. Mr. prune for congress, suits the diarrhea coming out of your mouth

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Thank you Ted. Time to add that to my links :-)

Herewegoagain-3022003

he could have lost his life for being uncooperative and stupid

Remember those words you used if an over zealous or stressed LEO somewhere, sometime accidently kills one of you family or friends during a traffic stop and uses it as an excuse.

I hope he does file a lawsuit. The only way to teach the police to obey the law is to hit them in their pocketbook.

Anita-2036926: IN CT as long as you have a permit you can OPEN CARRY, this is different then a CC.

Open carry means you carry the weapon in the open to were you can see it at all times.

If you can open carry--then why did cops come and arrest him (or charge him--whatever)?

WWJD999: Cops came do to a call of a person with a gun and they said he did not comply with the officers' commands.

Thats what he was arrested on, they did not charge him with carrying a weapon, they charged him with not following there commands.

WWJD999

If you can open carry--then why did cops come and arrest him (or charge him--whatever)?

We presume you read the article.. the charge was inducing panic. Perhaps you should read the laws of CT and the article before commenting.

The only ones who induced panic were the officers who made everyone stand up with their hands in the air, then exit the theater.

Joe Scatone, cops are never hit in the pocketbook. All payouts on their behalf are courtesty of the taxpayer. This needs to change, of course. Can you imagine how much better behaved police would be if they thought there might be consequences to their behavior?

Three time I have pointed out to someone that their handgun was showing. Once was a police officer and twice was people with their TX CHL(in pass 10 yrs). People with guns do not cause me to run and hide. There are more good people with guns than evil people with guns.

WWJ: did you even read the WHOLE article?

I wouldn't live in an area where you have such a huge fear of being robbed while out and about that you need to be armed. I would have to be living in downtown Syria before I felt I needed to be strapped. And has I said, I wouldn't continue to live there. No one is forced to live in a bad area like that in this country. There are plenty of movie theaters in nice areas if you feel unsafe going to the local theater. In rough neighborhoods, you only have to drive an extra 5-10 minutes get to a nicer part of town. I would do that rather then risk getting into a firefight in my old neighborhood. Again, I would move if things got that bad.

Move where and with what money? Your $100,000 home turns into a $20,000 and you owe $70,000. You obviously don't live in the real world,

Open carry is legal in CT with a permit. It's not a "concealed carry" permit. It's a "carry" permit. The law does not require the gun be hidden from view.

Mark not all permits are CC, HELLO...

This is a open carry permit they are talking about that means the weapons is out in the open in a holster to were if you look at the person you can see there weapon. Normal carry for open carry is on the hip.

Yes, Mark. Leatherneck seems to know what he's talking about (?) Back to the Wild Wild West for USA. Ye haw!

WWJD999

Yes, Mark. Leatherneck seems to know what he's talking about (?) Back to the Wild Wild West for USA. Ye haw!

Perhaps leatherneck lives in CT or has actually READ the laws regarding carry permits in CT? There is this brand new nifty thing called the internet that allows you to "google" information. Perhaps you and Mark should try it out?

But police still respond to reports of a person with a gun? You would think they would be running all over the place?

WWJD999

Yes, and it is painfully obvious you have no clue every time you post something. But hey, just keep on grazing that grass.....

It says interfere with police. How do you interfere if you don't draw the weapon, or you are following the open carry law? You can't interfere with police when they are always late to a crime scene. I know it isn't always their fault, but it is true.

J-birdman

I feel like it might have been a bad idea to bring a gun into a movie theater considering what just happened.

In light of what happened all persons who can legally do so SHOULD be carrying in the event of a copy cat. The shooting in CO was facilitate due to that theater being a gun free zone... aka a victim zone.

It's been my experience reading this site's articles on anything gun-related, most readers are not familiar with "Sheepdog Mentality" when it comes to civilian protectors. Although an overused addage, the line "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" is still an applicable one.

trust_verify

Yes, because citizens firing their weapons in a dark theater full of patrons who were fleeing would've made the situation much better. And then the guy sitting beside you (who also happens to be carrying a weapon) sees you pull your weapon and thinks that you are an accomplice to the first gunman....blah, blah, blah. It's the same tired, endless argument that it's always been - thinking that an entire venue full of guns is going to stop an assailant without harming innocent bystanders. The best bet would be if someone would've jumped this scrawny kid (in CO) and beat him down after the first shots were fired. I can guarantee that would result in fewer casualties than if 50 individuals would've started firing their weapons in a crowded, dark theater.

The best bet would be if someone would've jumped this scrawny kid (in CO) and beat him down after the first shots were fired

Right ... you were the fool who was going to rush the gunman who had a shotgun, rifle and handgun in his possession.. The guy may have been crazy but not a fool. He certainly didn't pick the theater because it was a firearms convention. Which if I recall there used to be a gunshow just down the road from there.

MOST of us who carry don't just whip it out and shoot at random... The Giffords incident is a prime example... There were no less than 3 legally armed citizens on scene. When none of them could determine who the bad guy was they simply went into watch and wait mode... as it turns out there were several people immediately next to that shooter that had no choice but to subdue the bad guy or die themselves, the shooter was lucky that day.

Criminals don't go where they KNOW they might be challenged. They go where they KNOW there are victims.

The patrons in Colorado were victimized by a cunning madman who took advantage of lack of suspicion by the locals. I would have noticed someone propping open the emergency exit. I would have kept my eye on the door after seeing him go out. I would have seen him come back in after going to his car (to get his weapons). I am a former inspector for a large northeastern city. Unlike most, I always look for the exits in a theater or restaurant. I pay attention to things that most ignore in an effort to "mind their own business".

I think a lawful gun owner may have noticed this nut coming back in the emergency exit with visible body armor, a gas mask and weapons. The target was clearly visible and he felt confident that there would be no one shooting back at him. One armed patron could have prevented many of the 70 casualties that night...

That shooter was wearing a gas mask which gives you a very narrow field of view and no peripheral vision. I was in the Military and had to practice working and firing a weapon while wearing one., so I know. While I would have been just as scared as everyone else, I would have jumped that guy from behind if I was close enough. There is no way he would have seen me, especially in a darken theater. And once you pushed or thrown him to the ground, others would help keep him there. I weigh 250, so it would have been no problem taking down that small kid.

What dark theater? Never been in one. He was in front of the screen, do you have teleporting superpowers so you could get behind him? Nonsense.

wow.

Leatherneck,

Your list of "states that allow open carry without the need of a permit" is incorrect. I live in Washington state, and our code follows British legal tradition, meaning that unless otherwise posted, carrying is completely legal (open or concealed). We require a permit for concealed carry, but anybody age 21 or older can openly carry a loaded handgun. You can also technically open carry in California without permit, if you remove the magazine.

fivel

You can also technically open carry in California without permit, if you remove the magazine.

They changed that one late last year... laws are forever changing, not always for the better.

Sad day. Goes to show how long it's been since i've been there!

fivel: Might want to check your state laws again I left out Washington and a few others due to:

Anomalous Open Carry States: The states that have a lot of grey area on open carry are Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, Louisiana , Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, Delaware and New Hampshire open carry in these states are generally lawful, but the state itself may have other stiff restrictions to deter citizens from carry a firearm open. The laws in these states are very grey and could cause you a lot of problems if you go toting a gun around openly. You shouldn't carry open firearms in these states just to avoid a charge of bringing terror to the people which only requires a citizen to see you carry open firearms and saying they are in fear. You will get charged.

That's why I left Washington state off the list like these others.

fivel

Sad day. Goes to show how long it's been since i've been there

Yes a sad day.. yet ANOTHER reason I won't be going back other than for visits.

Washington State allows open carry without a permit

Leatherneck,

Your information is completely bogus regarding Washington's laws. Our state follows british legal tradition, wherein restrictions have to be made, otherwise activity is completely permissable. We are a shall issue state, and any person 21 or older (without legal covictions) can openly carry a loaded handgun. I know this because not only have I done this, but there are many other WA residents who do.

Our state does not even attempt prosecute legal carry in cases of "public terror" because RCW 9.41.270 makes it clear that the state can only declare carrying unlawful if "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" - this means that merely carrying a weapon around does not qualify an arrest. The person who declares "public terror" is left with proving that the carrier intended harm or intimidation within the time, manner and correct circumstances.

You need to start reading each state's constitution (Washington's gun laws are most prominently determined in RCW 9.41.50/270/300). I live here, i've studied its gun laws, and i know firsthand by law enforcement officials and city council officials what is and is not legal.

Fivel: Again read your laws:

RCW 9.41.270

Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

fivel

Our state follows british legal tradition, wherein restrictions have to be made, otherwise activity is completely permissable. We are a shall issue state, and any person 21 or older (without legal covictions) can openly carry a loaded handgun. I know this because not only have I done this, but there are many other WA residents who do.

Hmmm there is what is enforced and what is legal... as usual in many states. A place to start would be the laws of the state of Washington. It appears one needs a Concealed Carry to transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle. RCW 9.41.050 (2)(a)" A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and........." One of the reasons I have my ccw is my state has the same sort of rule... Open carry but can't take it to the range in my vehicle. Please provide a link to Washington's OPEN CARRY laws or legislation. the CLOSEST I can find is RCW 9.41.270 which basically says if you have a "weapon" you can be charged with inducing panic. See also Washington Department of Wildlife pamphlet which is published due to legislation under 9.41........ Again don't take someones word for the laws of a particular state... READ it for yourself, contact the local LEO or a lawyer (other than perhaps the one in this story lol)

Again Ficel that's why I kept Washington State off the list. The laws in the state are very gray, it says you can open carry, yet it also states: It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

Key word: warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/mar/30/prosecutors-planning-charge-man-open-carry-handgun/

AmandaKay: I take it you did not bother to read the other posts.

This was not a concealed weapon, this was a open carry weapon.

Might want to look up the difference. By State laws anyone who has a open carry permit can carry there weapons anywhere they want except at State or Federal Court house, Post office, Bank premises or any property that has a NO weapons allowed sign.

As long as its not one of those areas or the property does not have a no weapons sign then they can legally carry there weapons onto said properties.

AmandaKay: He brought his weapon because he said the showing would not get out until 1am, and he wanted to feel safe traveling alone in the area - this is understandable. Why would he call the police on himself? He was lawfully carrying his weapon in an area that did not display any restrictions.

And your last question is the silliest one i've heard, which is sad because almost everyone who's anti-2A repeats it. Would you put a sign on your house that says "i never lock my doors"? If a business puts a "no guns allowed" sign up on its property, it pretty much guarantees a criminal will have zero resistance committing unlawful activity. They won't care whether the sign is up or not. But they can count on not getting shot at when they rob the place.

five totally agree. I do not know whay people want to take a way from law abiding citizens. We know Criminals will always get them.

So genius! How were people to know that THIS particular gun toter was a "law abiding citizen?" Did he have that tattooed on his forehead?

What I get out of this is that he was looking for trouble.

Possibly. What I think he was actually doing was looking for publicity for his 'cause'.

He made sure people saw him with the gun, knowing full well that after Aurora and Oak Creek, someone would drop a dime on him. When the police predictably showed up, he made sure he was taken into custody by not cooperating with them immediately. Add the news media, stir well, and voila - instant manufactured controversy.

The guy is president-elect of the New Haven Bar Association for goodness sake - he knew exactly what he was doing, and that he would be heard while doing it.

This is just another cynical ploy perpetrated by those who would keep us afraid. Enough with the faux macho crap already.

Apparently, although if you're in an open-carry state, you can wear your gun openly, if you have a Concealed Carry Permit, the gun must REMAIN concealed. You can't lift your shirt and reveal it, for example, because THAT would be brandishing. Open-carry is open-carry. Concealed is concealed. Simple.

That said, if I were that lawyer, I (a) would not have been in the goddamn theater at that hour if he was scared to walk the streets; and (b) would have taken measures to keep the freakin' weapon concealed. The fact that numerous people were able to see it tells me this guy was NOT a responsible gun-owner and therefore did cause a public threat.

I'm PRO-2nd Amendment rights, but you have to be SMART about it.

Connecticut is not a traditional open carry state.
Outside of your own residence or place of business, a permit is required to
carry. The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed
carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

Open is you have to have it visible, to everyone. Concealed means it does not have to show to the public. It can be hidden, or visible.

Uh huh. Cause everyone has armor piercing rounds to penetrate Holme's body armor, right?

Dave2001 - Holmes had soft spots. A head or leg shot might have taken him down. But that is not the point. The point is that if you could ask ANY of the victims... if you could poll them... I'd bet they'd ALL say they wished they could have fought back.

No, I don't think Texas western shoot-outs are what we need. But what I do know are that areas where citizens are known to often be armed... crime is lower. Take Kennessaw GA, for example. There you MUST own a gun. Check the stats on crime there.

The problem with open carry is that no one can guess the carrier's intent. After all people were shot to death in Colorado at this same movie. And in walks someone to THIS showing of the movie with a gun. Which may have led some rational movie patrons or responsible theater staff to reasonably fear a repeat!

Dave2001spaceoddest-y
Uh huh. Cause everyone has armor piercing rounds to penetrate Holme's body armor, right?

Obviously as you can see below armor piercing isn't necessary.

In November 1992, South Carolina Highway Patrolman Mark Coates shot an attacker four times in the torso with his 4 inch Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. His attacker, an obese adult male who weighed almost 300 pounds, absorbed the hits and shortly thereafter returned fire with one shot from a single-action North American Arms .22 caliber mini-revolver. Coates was fatally wounded when the tiny bullet perforated his left upper arm and penetrated his chest through the armhole of his vest where the bullet cut a major artery. Coates, who was standing next to the passenger-side front fender of the assailant's car when he was hit by the fatal bullet, was very quickly incapacitated.

FBI: 2 of 3 Slain Officers Wore Body Armor

May 14, 2012 |

Two out of every three law enforcement officers who were killed in 2011 were wearing body armor, according to preliminary data released by the FBI today.

Of the 72 victim officers, 49 were wearing body armor at the times of their deaths, according to the FBI. The data was released as a preview of the FBI's annual "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted" report, which arrives in the fall.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2012/05/14/fbi-2-of-3-slain-officers-wore-body-armor.aspx

You have the option of concealing it. It can be on a hoster in full view or hidden under a jacket. A carry permit the weapon must be in full view. I personally like concealed because a crook doesn't know who could possibly shoot at them at any time. So many times this would have saved lives.