Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
Gun culture - agree but that is a total separate giant battle.
But based on the law Rittenhouse had the legal right to carry that firearm. There were dozens of others armed - on both sides - with a whole host of guns. Just seeing a gun doesn't mean you have to stop the person (maybe in Canada, but this is the states) - and simply having an AR-15 isn't "provocative" in the sense of the law, he would need to be doing something that incites "an immediate and forceful response" - (ie drawing it on someone else unprovoked). Carrying it alone isn't provocative in a legal sense. You have no right to "remove an assault weapon" from someone. (Not even going to touch the 'assault' weapon term, again, a whole other argument we don't need to delve into)
|
I demonstrated that there seems to be scenarios where if the public feels someone's presence is threatening and their bearing of arms is grossly inappropriate, albeit legal; they can disarm the person and it is legal. The same example also showed that it is illegal (albeit only a misdemeanor) to exercise those rights as an attempt to intimidate, incite fear or panic in a crowd. The man who disarmed him was not charged with anything. So there does seem to be some latitude for the public to take proactive actions against a perceived threat. When and where I guess is debatable and there does not appear to be clear lines.
Basically what happened was after the El Paso shooting, a man decided to do a "social experiment" to see if his right to bear arms would be respected. He walked into a Wal-mart armed and was recording himself walking around to get reactions. Multiple people called 911, the manager pulled the fire alarm, and a member of the public got sick of the dick swinging display and disarmed him. What he was doing was technically legal but it was deemed that the public was justified in seeing him as a threat. It was right after that when Wal-mart banned open carry in their stores.