https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/breaking-armed-man-with-rifle-handgun-and-body-armor-stopped-and-arrested-outside-springfield-missouri-walmart/

Was stopped and held at gunpoint by an off duty fireman with CCW

I think there is more to this story.  He peacefully surrendered.  MO is a permitless carry state, so he may very well be carrying the guns for protection, same as wearing the body armor.  IIRC, London808 wore body armor at Ala Moana Shopping Center.  He peacefully surrendered so no good guys would get hurt until this got sorted out.  That is one scenario that immediately came to my mind.  I am sure we will hear more about it.

I think there is more to this story.  He peacefully surrendered.  MO is a permitless carry state, so he may very well be carrying the guns for protection, same as wearing the body armor.  IIRC, London808 wore body armor at Ala Moana Shopping Center.  He peacefully surrendered so no good guys would get hurt until this got sorted out.  That is one scenario that immediately came to my mind.  I am sure we will hear more about it.

You have a point, I admit that in light of recent events I jumped to the conclusion that this dude was bad news. Could have very well been someone who took somewhat of a misguided initiative to guard the store. I will update story/title as more info comes out.

Not much info about motive mostly conjecture. The young man had previously displayed anger at walmart when they stopped selling firearms to those under 21. Possibly some form of statement/protest. I can confirm that he did not ever brandish his weapons.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/jackass-charged-with-terroristic-threats-after-walking-into-springfield-walmart-with-rifle-handgun-100-rounds-of-ammo-and-body-armor-faces-up-to-4-yrs-in-prison/

So since he did not brandish anything (rifle was slung), wouldn't the CCW holder be the one who broke the law?  Pointed his gun at other guy and gave commanding orders to him.

So since he did not brandish anything (rifle was slung), wouldn't the CCW holder be the one who broke the law?  Pointed his gun at other guy and gave commanding orders to him.

I see a lawsuit against the firefighter and police department coming up, and looks like he has a good chance of winning unless he made some sort of threat.  Guy likely did this to get attention which sucks, but it's still his right to do.

It's good to see a CCW take the initiative, however it seems like he did it out of fear instead of an actual threat.

I hope to hell that the reporter and/or the "attorneys" he "spoke to" are wrong. The guy did nothing against any laws by openly carrying in that location, or taking video of himself openly carrying. Yet he's been charged with "terroristic threatening". What did he say or do to communicate a terroristic threat? Nothing. According the the reporter/attorneys, if he was "perceived as a threat", that is terroristic threatening! That is so full of shit. This is worse than the fucking "red flag" laws. Totally dependent on someone's "perception"? That's inane. Okay. I perceive Ige, and Lyin' Harry Kim, and Green and Rhoads and Lee and Baker et al. as threats. Can someone please go arrest all of them now and charge and try and convict and imprison them? Please. I'm serious. I "feel" "threatened" by them. No? Why not? Only if someone is legally bearing a weapon? Give me a fucking break.

And changemyoil is right, once someone draws a weapon and points it at you you have the moral and legal right to defend yourself with lethal force, which is being directed against you. Is that fucking fireman now going to be walking around WalMart all day looking for people who are "printing" and assume/"feel" that they are terroristic threats and draw on them?

What a pile of shit. If open carry ever happens here we can expect this kind of crap on steroids. Fuck them.

I see a lawsuit against the firefighter and police department coming up, and looks like he has a good chance of winning unless he made some sort of threat.  Guy likely did this to get attention which sucks, but it's still his right to do.

It's good to see a CCW take the initiative, however it seems like he did it out of fear instead of an actual threat.

Yeah, just like the superstitious racist criminals blocking the public roadway at Mauna Kea... except no one has to "perceive" them being a threat, they are literally breaking the law, getting attention for it. and allowed to continue their criminal acts for weeks while being ignored, coddled and encouraged by all the corrupt racist Democrats in charge of this place. Must be nice. Any Second Amendment-protected rights supporter who blocked a public roadway to demonstrate that their clearly Constitutionally-delineated rights are being violated (no bearing arms for self-defense) would be removed within a few minutes of cops arriving, if that long. Hypocrites.

That's why open carry sucks.  No need the controversy, just allow concealed carry then the sheep can go on grazing with a 100% false sense of security (that is there right) and the rest of us can actually have a little security (that is our right).  I am lazy and cheap, so I don't want to have to go to court every time I walk into Walmart with my AR slung on my back.  Better to just cruze in, get what you came for and cruze out, no need have your "olos" hangin' out to show off to the world.  That just make drama for everyone.

Not saying the guy was wrong, just too much dramas.

No way the charge is going to stick.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-in-disturbance-at-missouri-walmart-said-he-was-testing-2nd-amendment-rights-prosecutors


The probable cause document quoted Andreychenko as saying he “wanted to know if Walmart honored the Second Amendment.” He said he had bought the rifle and body armor because of three recent shootings and a stabbing, and wanted to protect himself.

“Missouri protects the right of people to open-carry a firearm, but that does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner endangering other citizens," Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson said in a statement announcing charges. Patterson compared the actions of the accused to "falsely shouting fire in a theater, causing a panic."

If this dude thinks he was helping the 2A cause, he's a fucking moron, and will set us back in this battle.   

Darwin award winner...

If this dude thinks he was helping the 2A cause, he's a fucking moron, and will set us back in this battle.   

Darwin award winner...

My first instinct is to say that this whole incident is stupid.  However I relate it to what may happen in Hawaii.  Young v Hawaii may determine that open carry is constitutional but CCW is not.  People here would freak out just the same if there was a mass shooting with a handgun here and see people open carrying which they are not used to.  Then would the proper thing be not to open carry?

My first instinct is to say that this whole incident is stupid.  However I relate it to what may happen in Hawaii.  Young v Hawaii may determine that open carry is constitutional but CCW is not.  People here would freak out just the same if there was a mass shooting with a handgun here and see people open carrying which they are not used to.  Then would the proper thing be not to open carry?

A great number of people here will "freak out" if they see a "civilian" open carrying (even just a handgun) even without there being any "mass shooting". Of course they will actually be in greater "danger" from people carrying concealed, because the percentage of criminals who open carry is zero, and the percentage of criminals who carry concealed is 100%. So they are in greater danger, but they are too stupid to know that they are actually in greater danger. If someday only open carry is legal, I'm betting most criminals will still carry concealed, in order to have the "secret advantage" over people who will not know they are armed, just like now.

If the argument is along the lines of the articles as I posted above, that "perceived threat", in the form of open carrying even when completely legal, is a crime... then the only, and obvious, answer to preventing those crimes is to ban open carry... because then no one will be able to "perceive a threat" (even though there is an equal or greater threat from people carrying concealed). If SCOTUS practices stare decisis and continues to conclude that concealed carry is not a right and may be banned (see: Heller, MacDonald, Kavanaugh testimony at his confirmation hearing, etc.), then there will be "no carry", which is what we have here now (well, except for the criminals who carry everywhere every day, as evidence by multiple events in the past week). So, whatever you do, don't get perceived as a threat, for whatever reason, or you're going to jail and you'll ruin everything for everyone else who shares whatever characteristic and/or action that got you arrested and charged as a "perceived threat" (e.g. large black man in white neighborhood at night, etc.).

My first instinct is to sue that fireman for false arrest, brandishing a firearm, assault and kidnapping -- along with all the emotional distress and public defamation and humiliation that ensued.

It's not the public's job to prevent imaginary crimes.  The fireman should have called police to investigate and, if still concerned, follow and observe the "suspect".  He should only take action if the person acts in a threatening or dangerous manner.

In other words, the fireman had NO CAUSE to point a firearm at the man.  Until and unless that man brandished his own weapon/s, there was no justification for  assuming ill intent.

Yeah, I would sue.

That 20 yr old did nothing illegal.  He was just stupid. 

At least the guy obeyed commands from someone with a gun pointed at him and didnt argue or escalate the situation.

Overzelous ccw holder, overzelous cops. Watch OC get banned there.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it smart or right.  Common sense is absent in this day and age.  All parties need to apologize to each other and go their separate ways, and hope a lesson was learned.

If a pedestrian steps out into the street, not paying attention, in a crosswalk, and gets nailed by a car, he's the loser.  Was the pedestrian within his legal rights to have the "right of way" in the crosswalk?  Yep, BUT that still doesn't make it right, nor smart. 

It's fucken stupid,  and so was this dingbat,  fucken stupid.

Makes all gun owners look stupid.
I refuse to defend this idiot.

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it smart or right.  Common sense is absent in this day and age.  All parties need to apologize to each other and go their separate ways, and hope a lesson was learned.

If a pedestrian steps out into the street, not paying attention, in a crosswalk, and gets nailed by a car, he's the loser.  Was the pedestrian within his legal rights to have the "right of way" in the crosswalk?  Yep, BUT that still doesn't make it right, nor smart. 

It's fucken stupid,  and so was this dingbat,  fucken stupid.

Makes all gun owners look stupid.
I refuse to defend this idiot.

So what, exactly, was the "stupid" part?

Should no one anywhere ever (there will always be "gun violence" within the past few days) open carry a handgun in any retail store? Anywhere? A rifle? Either while wearing "tactical gear"? Maybe it would be easier for you to describe the circumstance and details about "not stupid" open carry: What, when, where, etc.

So what, exactly, was the "stupid" part?

Should no one anywhere ever (there will always be "gun violence" within the past few days) open carry a handgun in any retail store? Anywhere? A rifle? Either while wearing "tactical gear"? Maybe it would be easier for you to describe the circumstance and details about "not stupid" open carry: What, when, where, etc.

If you can't figure that one out, I can't help you with my explanation.

The 20year old guy could sue the fireman.  But receiving an apology would be the proper thing to do.  The fireman may have been overzealous, but he's a firearm owner and took the initiative to do what he thought was right.

Can sue the police since they should've known better about charging him with terroristic threatening.