• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

3 Men With Assault Rifle, Handgun and Machete Went Shopping at Walmart

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,774
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
3 Men With Assault Rifle, Handgun and Machete Went Shopping at Walmart, Police Say
http://time.com/5208980/walmart-men-with-weapons/
(COLUMBUS, Miss.) — The states of Georgia and Mississippi have open-carry laws, meaning licensed gun owners can go around in public displaying their weapons. But businesses still have the right to prohibit weapons on their property.
Wrong, open carry in MISS. without a license is legal.
As to keeping guns out of stores there must be a sign posted. No sign no crime.
45-9-101(13)....Businesses still have the right to prohibit weapons on their property only if they post a sign that can be viewed from 10 feet away.
entity exercising control over the physical location of such place by the placing of a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten (10) feet that the "carrying of a pistol or revolver is prohibited."
From the article:
The Commercial Dispatch reports that a Walmart employee called police and then managers asked the men to leave once officers arrived.

Columbus Police Chief Fred Shelton says they left without incident. The Walmart store didn’t have a sign saying weapons are prohibited, but the chief says that doesn’t matter. He says anyone seeing someone carrying a weapon should call police and let officers determine if they pose a threat.
Looks like some Walmart managers need disciplined for violating company policy and a police chief needs fired.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,016
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
3 Men With Assault Rifle, Handgun and Machete Went Shopping at Walmart, Police Say
http://time.com/5208980/walmart-men-with-weapons/

Wrong, open carry in MISS. without a license is legal.
As to keeping guns out of stores there must be a sign posted. No sign no crime.


From the article:

Looks like some Walmart managers need disciplined for violating company policy and a police chief needs fired.
No, it looks like two idiots need to consider the potential ripple effects of their actions.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,413
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Sure. Don't you know... If a woman is raped it's because of how she was dressed.

OC needs to be the predominant form of carry to keep this stupid Chief busy.

BTW - Tho I live in La. I would admit to anyone that Ms. is the free-est state.
 
Last edited:

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
35
3 Men With Assault Rifle, Handgun and Machete Went Shopping at Walmart, Police Say
http://time.com/5208980/walmart-men-with-weapons/

Wrong, open carry in MISS. without a license is legal.
As to keeping guns out of stores there must be a sign posted. No sign no crime.


From the article:

Looks like some Walmart managers need disciplined for violating company policy and a police chief needs fired.
I believe the lawful signage requirement only applies to concealed carry. From a weapons standpoint, there can be no law made against open carry, as per Article 3 Section 12 of the Mississippi Constitution.
HLB
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
605
Location
Central Ky.
If people continue to open carry in places where open carry is allowed, soon these places will ban open carry. The practice should be stopped immediately before we lose that right.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
904
Location
Kentucky
If people continue to open carry in places where open carry is allowed, soon these places will ban open carry. The practice should be stopped immediately before we lose that right.
That WAS sarcasm right???

OC has been a right in ky since statehood and is a big yawn when it's done in this state.

Just curious but what is the difference in being not doing something because of irrational fear, or being told not to do it.

There is only ONE right. The RTKABA as protected by the 2A

And we already lost it for gov permission as to what we can keep and bear even in the most gun friendly states.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,054
Location
White Oak Plantation
I wonder if the cops disarmed these fellas...if they did they violated the law, specifically, RSMo 21.750.3(2)(c)
There is no penalty for a cop violating this statute, but a civil action could be pursued.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,774
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Here I go Again!!!

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

On January 12, 2018, in the case of Virginia Duncan, Et Al. v. Xavier Becerra, in the State of California, eighteen States filed an Amici Curiae Brief, in Support of Virginia Duncan, in which they made clear that:

‘“The Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right … to carry weapons in case of confrontation”’ — that is, to “‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584, 592 (2008).”’

Those eighteen states agreed that the Feds and the States have no authority to regulate the bearing of arms, period.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
904
Location
Kentucky
What,surprized, me about gutshots statement is,that that you don't get much more open carry friendly than our state.

It cannot be regulated by the legislature without amending the ky constitution. Almost every charge a cop has tried to tie to OC here historically never makes it to court but is dismissed out of hand. So much so there is little to no case,law regarding OC other than the open carry of a,weapon cannot be used as, a,reason to stop the carrier.

OC, is not under threat here and can't be without a constitutional amendment.

It's still up for debate of a no concealef weapons sign as required by statute here even lawfully applies to OC.

If anyone ever thinks it important enough to challenge IMO no gun signs will be ruled as not applying to OC.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,054
Location
White Oak Plantation
Other than RSMo 21.750.3 OC (a MO political subdivision can require a permit to OC) OC cannot be regulated. All prior restraint RSMo explicitly state CC, as in OC not explicitly mentioned in the RSMo. A private citizen may post a sign to ban guns OC or CC as is their right. RSMo 571.107.1(15) provides for signs (and their required attributes) that will get you a $100 citation for not leaving if asked to leave, and this only applies to CC.
 
Top