Open Carry Incident - Vincennes

[ATM]

The issue is, many here would have defended his right to tote an AR around until he shot the first kid, regardless of what his stated intentions were while in possession of the rifle.

It would be even easier to have defended his right to tote around a pellet rifle.

oops. wrong thread...

 

[churchmouse]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why would anyone ever be concerned with someone carrying a long gun into a McDonalds? I fail to see any reason for the police to be called.

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow. First I heard of this event.

 

[88GT]

The issue is, many here would have defended his right to tote an AR around until he shot the first kid, regardless of what his stated intentions were while in possession of the rifle.

Take away the benefit of hindsight, and why shouldn't he have been allowed to carry a long gun?

I would defend anybody's right to carry. What they choose to do with that right gets addressed AFTER they make their decisions. We cannot operate on a preventive model of criminal justice in this country without severely limiting the rights of the people. It is a de facto guilty until proven innocent model. It is wrong.

 

[KW730]

It was reported to them there was a MWAG at mcdonalds, by someone who presumably believed a crime is or possibly about to be committed. No crime need be committed for law enforcement to investigate. Law enforcement responded to the call, and initiated an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation they determined no laws had been broken and no further law enforcement action was taken.

A man in possession of a gun is not a crime. They knew there was no threat and had no reason to take the actions they took.

 

[88GT]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why would anyone ever be concerned with someone carrying a long gun into a McDonalds? I fail to see any reason for the police to be called.

San Ysidro McDonald's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could ask the same question of carrying a handgun.


There is no logic in your argument because it presupposes that the factor affecting the outcome is the possession of the firearm and not the intent of the individual. People walk around everyday carrying a firearm and do not commit crimes with them. Why should a long gun be seen any differently than a handgun?

 

[HoughMade]

At the risk of bringing reality into the theoretical little world of the open carry tunnel vision advocates, places like McDonalds are in a trick bag. Most people who carry guns are law abiding and safe, but when things go bad, they go real bad and McDonalds WILL be held responsible for the injury or death of people in their restaurant. What are they supposed to do? When I was a teenager, a guy killed 21 people in a McDonalds and wounded 19 more- with a pump shotgun and a Hi-Power.

Can McDonalds ever say again that when a person openly brings a long gun into their restaurant (a holstered pistol is quite a bit less aggressive in appearance, deny reality if you wish) ...and God forbid he turns out to be a nut job, the resulting murders ARE NOT foreseeable? Absolutely not. So calling the police? You may not like it, it may not turn out to be necessary, but I can't blame them for it.

The police- they get a call, and who knows exactly what was said (or how many calls they got), and should they refuse to respond? Could they have handled the situation differently? Sure. According the OP's account, it seemed a little over-the-top. They could have come to the restaurant and questioned the carrier to assess the situation and I would have seen no problem with that. If the McDonalds people don't want him there, their call and you can make your cheap food decisions accordingly.

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect their invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks. Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968, 973 (Ind. 1999)....


In three cases handed down together four years ago, this Court held that the determination of whether a landowner owed an invitee a duty to take reasonable care to protect the invitee against a third party criminal attack requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the criminal act was reasonably foreseeable. L.W. v. Western Golf Ass'n, 712 N.E.2d 983, 984-985 (Ind. 1999); Vernon, 712 N.E.2d at 979; Delta Tau Delta, 712 N.E.2d at 973. This analysis includes looking to "all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents." Western Golf, 712 N.E.2d at 985... While the number, nature, and location of prior similar incidents are substantial factors, "the lack of prior similar incidents will not preclude a claim where the landowner knew or should have known that the criminal act was foreseeable." Id. at 973. We emphasized that "when the landowner is in a position to take reasonable precautions to protect his guest from a foreseeable criminal act, courts should not hesitate to hold that a duty exists." Id. at 974.


Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048, 1052-1053 (Ind. 2003)

 

[HoughMade]

There is no logic in your argument because it presupposes that the factor affecting the outcome is the possession of the firearm and not the intent of the individual. People walk around everyday carrying a firearm and do not commit crimes with them. Why should a long gun be seen any differently than a handgun?

I don't care if people open carry. However, prepare for police to ask a question or two, especially if you are carrying a long gun in a place with a lot of people. You made your choice of carry, now live with what that logically brings with it.

 

[88GT]

You're changing the parameters. I don't know of a tunnel-visioned carry advocate that doesn't also acknowledge McD's authority to control who comes and goes, and with what accoutrements, in their restaurants. This isn't about a private property owner asking someone to leave. This is about LE making the legal act of carrying a long gun illegal by prohibiting it with their temper tantrums. Take the carrying of a long gun outside on the streets. Is it still okay for LE to tell someone he can't do a legal act?

And I would ask you how a robbery/shoot-'em-up is a foreseeable act? Unless you are arguing that the presence of a firearm is a reliable indicator of the intent and likely outcome. In which case, why don't I see you advocating for the repeal of carry in total?

 

[88GT]

I don't care if people open carry. However, prepare for police to ask a question or two, especially if you are carrying a long gun in a place with a lot of people. You made your choice of carry, now live with what that logically brings with it.

Logical? What by standard? The one that says carrying a firearm is a precursor to a criminal act? Because that's the only way someone can justify the LE response. How is that logical?

The only reason people have to "deal" with the consequence is because there are people who share your irrational, illogical view that carrying a firearm somehow makes one more of a threat? What if he carried it and no one saw it? Does that change how much of a threat he is?

 

[rhino]

While I like where you're going with this thought, it also strikes me that you might have just been hanging around with rhino recently which only makes it seem plausible.

I can neither affirm nor deny that allegation.

I would, however, carry my rifle if I felt like accommodating the burden(s).

Take away the benefit of hindsight, and why shouldn't he have been allowed to carry a long gun?

I would defend anybody's right to carry. What they choose to do with that right gets addressed AFTER they make their decisions. We cannot operate on a preventive model of criminal justice in this country without severely limiting the rights of the people. It is a de facto guilty until proven innocent model. It is wrong.

Yes.

 

[warthog]

The 3 McD's closest to me have never said anything about my sidearm. In fact, I don't know that any McD's I've patronized has asked me to leave or return it to my car.

Google the Official McDonald's Policy on firearms. If yours aren't asking you to leave, I guess you;re special.
I can only say what they state as their official policy.

 

[Destro]

A man in possession of a gun is not a crime. They knew there was no threat and had no reason to take the actions they took.

I'm simply stating the legal authority they had to start an investigation, to detain the subject during said investigation, and take temporary custody of the weapon throughout the investigation.

 

[Destro]

Take away the benefit of hindsight, and why shouldn't he have been allowed to carry a long gun?

I would defend anybody's right to carry. What they choose to do with that right gets addressed AFTER they make their decisions. We cannot operate on a preventive model of criminal justice in this country without severely limiting the rights of the people. It is a de facto guilty until proven innocent model. It is wrong.

I'm not advocating taking away his right, but the tone of the thread is that for someone to even stop/question him about it would be some kind of outrageous assault on the 2nd amendment.

I don't want any legal restrictions on OC of firearms of any kind any place at any time...but why do we ourselves need to carry guns if we operate under the mentality that every single person carrying a firearm is an upstanding citizen until they shoot somebody?

 

[Old_grunt]

Adam Lanza was just open carrying an AR...protecting our rights, I guess....right up to the second he started slaughtering children.

Don't forget he shot his mother, then stole all the legally owned guns, before going to school to protect our rights.

 

[88GT]

Google the Official McDonald's Policy on firearms. If yours aren't asking you to leave, I guess you;re special.
I can only say what they state as their official policy.

It's well established that I'm special. But I don't think McDonald's is aware of that (I try to blend in with the reg'lar folk so as not to make them too jelaous), let alone making concessions just for little ol' me.

I imagine much has to do with the location of each restaurant and the franchise status. I choose to live in an area of Indy where freedom is a little (and I use that word loosely) more respected.

 

[Old_grunt]

Vincennes University lifts lockdown following search for gunman | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

 

[KG1]

This all leads to the mentality that all "evil black assault rifles" are only meant to do one thing and that is to massacre people. If you are legally carrying one in a non threatening manner then it should be the prevailing assumption that you are looking to commit mass murder. Right?

 

[HoughMade]

This all leads to the mentality that all "evil black assault rifles" are only meant to do one thing and that is to massacre people. If you are legally carrying one then it should be assumed you are looking to commit mass murder. Right?

You understand there's a wide gulf between assuming "you are looking to commit mass murder" and just checking the situation out, right?

Honestly, some of you act like talking to a policeman is akin to being sent to the ovens.

 

[Old_grunt]

OK, there is a list maintained on the GOA site of all the people, companies and organizations that are antigun. There is another list that is now inaccessible on the Pink Pistols website that does the same thing. McDonald's used to be on both of them but has been struck from the GOA list, therefore I must retract my statement. It is easy enough however to Google McDonald's gun policy. Do it and you will find they want you to leave your guns in your car, or at home, before entering their "restaurants". They feel it hurts business and puts people on edge if firearms are present. I suppose those of you who have been looking for years haven't tried Google yet. They have followed Starbuck's n their policy again recently. First they said they'd go with the local laws then they caved to pressure and decided that gun were bad. I admit they must have stopped funding antigun activities however which is a step in the right direction. They still have soe further steps IMO.

That is all you get. Not good enough? Then enjoy your "food".

Indiana Code 34-28-7

That should be good enough for you and as a matter of fact, I DO know how to use google, thank you very much :P

 

[88GT]

I'm not advocating taking away his right, but the tone of the thread is that for someone to even stop/question him about it would be some kind of outrageous assault on the 2nd amendment.

Well, I happen to agree with that. Imagine the outrage if an individual of Middle Eastern/Arabic features was stopped, detained, and questioned because someone felt threatened that he (said someone) had seen this poor unsuspecting swarthy--skinned individual reading the Koran and carrying a backpack on the subway/in the park/on a bus. There's no more justification to stop the Muslim than there is to stop someone carrying a long gun (or any firearm for that matter) in the absence of any other information.

I don't want any legal restrictions on OC of firearms of any kind any place at any time...but why do we ourselves need to carry guns if we operate under the mentality that every single person carrying a firearm is an upstanding citizen until they shoot somebody?

Red herring. Nobody honestly thinks that every individual carrying a firearm is a law-abiding citizen. What we know is that in a nation operating under a rule of law that is premised on the rights of the individual, he [that individual] IS innocent until proven guilty, and you don't stop, detain, or arrest him until AFTER a crime has been committed.

In the case of Lanza, to continue with the singular example, IF LE had reason to believe that he was about to commit a crime (and possession of the firearm is NOT reasonable cause to believe he is about to commit a crime), and/or IF LE had reason to believe that he had committed a crime, then by all means, stop, detain, question, etc. I'll even grant extending some greater leeway and allowing for LE to stop and question someone who, in addition to carrying a firearm (long gun or otherwise), is behaving suspiciously or abnormally for the location/circumstances/etc. Again, simply carrying the firearm is not to be considering abnormal or suspicious.

I understand the hand-wringing of people who will then argue that people will be upset that Lanza wasn't stopped (continuing with the example and hypotheticals) when it became known that he had been seen walking around with a rifle. But the answer is not to restrict the liberties of everybody else. It is to tell the crybabies that bad things happen and no amount of legislation, police presence, mandatory sentencing, inanimate-object banning is going to change that. Gun owners always fall prey to letting the opposition define the problem. As long as you continue to do that, we will always be on the begging side of the law, pleading with the ruling class to exercise what should be ordinary behavior.