Skip to comments.Man wore handgun to 'Dark Knight' movie(PA open carry)
Posted on 07/28/2012 3:52:19 AM PDT by marktwain
HANOVER, Pa. (WHTM) -
Pennsylvania law allows adults who can legally own a firearm to openly carry in most public places, but not everyone may agree with a man who chose to wear his pistol to a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."
The manager of Hanover's R/C Theatre, Kim Underwood, says she called police Monday evening after she was notified that a movie-goer had a handgun tucked into his belt.
She said she thought it was best to notify authorities given the killings of 12 people in Aurora, Colorado during the movie's midnight opening last week.
"They handled it accordingly after the movie was over. He was very cool about it," Underwood said of the 27-year-old gun owner.
There wasn't much to handle. Pennsylvania law allows open carry in businesses, although not everyone agrees it's a good idea.
"I support people's rights to carry guns and what have you, but a movie theater is another story," movie-goer Santo Musotto said.
The gun owner, who we will not identify, told abc27 News that exercising his Second Amendment right is simply part of his routine.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc27.com ...
Too bad no one was carrying in Aurora.
The 27 y/o may disagree with those leftists on self-defense and firearms, but he will defend to the death their ability to go to a movie safely despite their stupid beliefs.
Where in his statement does he say that? He's only carrying to protect himself wherever he goes, even against the opinions of theater managers. It is not within his purview to be engaged in protecting others, except perhaps those within his party for whom he is responsible.
And how come the theater manager knew he was carrying? If you have a CCDW in my state, the law is that it is to be concealed and not printing through your clothing that you are armed. I believe that is also still true in PA, for I have concurrently held a license there for many years.
This kid was demonstrating extremely poor judgment and prejudicial to the interests of other carriers, in view of the current furor.
“how come the theater manager knew he was carrying?”
Re-read the article. Open carry = legal. First sentence.
I think a business owner should have the right to say whether they will permit firearms on their property, and to face the consequences. Any patrons can choose to patronize that business, or not. If they do not permit firearms, and G-d forbid an Aurora-like incident occurs, they can expect to be sued.
I don't consider 27 years old "a kid", and I don't agree with you that people should not open carry where it is legal. I admire those who open carry, because it helps everyone get used to it. But it takes courage, and willingness to be hassled at best, and maybe even stopped for hours by police and have your firearm confiscated.
Not only any business, but any “public” gathering place.
Because another moviewatcher saw that it was tucked in his belt and reported it.
There is a difference between private property and government property. We can try to influence policies on government property, but we may not prevail. But property owners should be the decision-makers of policies on their own property. Of course, that liberty has been drastically abridged by government. It’s getting to where private property owners have the right to all the liability and taxes, and very little decision-making on their own property.
One thing that bugs me is the confusing use of the term “public”. Strictly speaking, that should only be used for government property, and it would be better to call that what it is: “government property”. Calling private property “public” is allowing the leftists to control the dialog.
You are right. I did not thoroughly read the original article. But let me say that if, then, he was carrying open, that in the mindset of the moment he may well institute a local theater policy not against those who open carry, but also against those who are licensed to carry concealed.
In PA, it is a relatively simple thing to do to obtain a CCDW for any PA resident, or for a resident of an adjoining state licensed in his own state. If you decide to open carry, you can expect to be stopped and questioned (harassed) by local police to show that you are not a person prohibited.
This kid, whatever his point, is still exhibiting poor judgment in advancing the interests of other carriers.(IMHO)
For example, people always say “public schools”. I always say “government schools”. The term public schools is a weasel term, trying to make people feel like it’s “the citizen’s” schools. Say it like it is.
I sincerely doubt an open carry gun owner would tuck a gun into his belt. It’s an excellent way to shoot the ole pecker off. Instead I think he may have had an inside holster which made it look like it was tucked in.
Well, the government would love you -- they don't have to regulate your freedoms away, you will give them up voluntarily!
And again, he's not a kid. When does he become a young adult, 35?
I wonder why a movie theater is “another story”.
Damn straight, and the government should have absolutely no jurisdiction within the confines of private property unless a crime has been committed.
We can try to influence policies on government property, but we may not prevail.
First of all, there shouldn't be much "government property". Secondly, we shouldn't have to influence it...the Constitution or various state constitutions should be black-and-white/cut-and-dried on "governmental rights".
One thing that bugs me is the confusing use of the term public. Strictly speaking, that should only be used for government property
The RATs passed no smoking laws here in Maine that referred to "public places" but meant in addition to all businesses it pertained to private restaurants, bars and veterans clubs.
Although I appreciate smoke-free buildings, as far as I'm concerned they went way beyond their Constitutional authority in implementing these bans.
aurora theater was a Gun-Free zone....
too bad the Bozo the Clown shooter did not follow the law...
gun free zones only put law abiding citizens in jeopardy.
Well, I'm 75, and I consider a 27-year-old a "kid" if he is going around making a big issue of open carrying, and legitimately inviting questions as to his common sense, when a small fee for a PA license, if he is a person not prohibited, will admit one without question to any place where legally allowed open or concealed.
Remember, a CCDW licensee can carry open any place he wishes. But some places are just not practical, convenient, wise, or popularly accepted. Being an agitator on principle may not be helpful to the cause at all.
But "kids" often don't understand that. That's what makes them kids. I respect a person who shows good judgment as not being a kid, whether 16 or 60.
Sometimes I exhibit poor judgment in answering comments on FR just to make a point. Maybe this is one case. But open carry campaigns in this atmosphere, especially at this movie, does not seem to be a wise thing. Flatulence in church, when it slips out inadvertently, is to be forgiven; but when deliberate, in-your-face, and flaunted, is wholly inexcusable.
With respect to those of a different opinion on this -- but I have mine.
I see this is ABC. I’m surprised they didn’t immediately label him a Tea party member and say he was caught before he tried to murder movie patrons.
Personally, I grew up in the west (born in Wyoming) and am quite comfortable with responsible people carrying firearms openly. The more wannabe criminals see people openly carrying, the more they are likely to take their nefarious business elsewhere.
But I also understand the mindset of people who get the vapors over seeing someone with an unconcealed firearm and prefer to carry concealed myself.
I know some 27 year olds that have served 8 years in the USMC, done 4 tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, and are married with multiple children. Are they kids to you?
I just posted the related article on freerepublic:
If I saw someone packing in a state where open carry is legal, I’d be sitting next to him/her....
If I wasn’t wearing my own.
The government is my government, and it would do a little better if it stopped infringing on my rights. But as it is I have the right to open carry, and would like to see concealed carry without having to pay for it. But denying minors, felons, and mentally unstable segments of the population from purchasing and carrying sidearms without severe penalties does not seem unreasonable.
Your assertion that I would give up my freedoms without a contest is asinine. But if I exercised my freedom to call you an ass to your face, that might cause you to exercise your freedom to punch me in the nose, for which you might voluntarily lose your freedom. You are not making sense. We have governments to do exactly what they are meant to do -- to regulate human behavior.
And again, he's not a kid. When does he become a young adult, 35?
Did I not already answer this question? He may be legally an adult, but he is not showing mature judgment when he lights a match in an incendiary location with people who have been recently sensitized. That's just dumb. He might be doing this in PA, but he would be in the slammer in NY or IL.
Again, you can have your opinion -- it's a free country.
I bet when this movie opens in Israel that many the audience will be carrying M-16s and Uzis.
There are none. And so there again, the right holds the high ground -- something people tend to miss completely in this debate.
You need to remove your sig line. It doesn’t fit with your denigration of this mans efforts to be “be forearmed”...
If you have fallen for the fallacy of “looking like a weak, easy target by carrying concealed only” is better than looking like a capable adversary who is openly armed, then this could explain a few things about your attitude.
According to the political Left, anyone who wants to own/carry a firearm is "Mentally unstable". Are you sure you want to give the FedGov that power? Please note, this is not a power they have currently under Art 1 Sec 8.
if 'they' cant be trusted with power tools, why do "we" allow them to FReely roam the streets and movie theaters and endanger our families ???
We have governments to do exactly what they are meant to do -- to regulate human behavior.
and as stated before, be careful what you wish for, as the 'mentally unstable' may be easily defined as anyone in defiance of any 'law' or collective groupthink...common sense or otherwise...
Probably that whole thing about not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and all that. You know, the first baby steps in legislating God-given rights away.
Then there's the judicial get-away-with-anything term: precedence.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
A proper, Constitutional Government is there to protect your God given rights to life and property. The fact that some human behaviors are regulated is ancillary to that purpose, not the reason for it.
If you don't examine first principles, you'll end up allowing an illegitimate Government like the one we have now regulating your behavior in very dangerous ways.
Unh-unh. If open carry is the only option for law-abiding people, the only one for the perpetrator to fear and avoid is the open carrier -- like, say, a police officer or person with openly visible arms. No change in violent crime there.
But where concealed carry is another, and preferred option, especially in a "shall issue" state, the violent crime rate markedly drops. John R. Lott, Jr.'s statistics say so, I believe so, and act accordingly. Don't be the first to find out if the crowd I'm in is forewarned. You won't know until you show your hand.
As I have said before and often we should all prepare to carry such as Israel has had to do. Not just for a single crazed person but for several or possibly many.
Granted it may never be allowed to pass open carry for fully auto weapons like an Uzi, Glock 18 or other machine pistols but we should be on an early stage of war footing, because who is actually in front of us? I don’t see much of the police, nor the military, and every day they are either being restricted by actions or going the opposite direction under socialistic agenda orders.
Give me liberty, or give me death. If we are under armed they won’t give us liberty our enemies that is. Our enemies from many directions. And they may have tactically superior weapons.
The law in your state may need to change.
The Heller and McDonald decisions make it quite plain that the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment from government infringements. This protection extends to infringements by state governments.
If our Founders intended the protection to extend to only the concealed carrying of firearms, they were certainly capable of saying so. In fact, most arms that were carried at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment were long arms for which concealed carry would be impractical. The "bearing" of arms in the Second Amendment most certainly applies to those carried openly. At the time of our nation's founding, the prejudice of the day was probably against the concealed carrying of arms.
As to the practical aspects of open carry, it's my opinion that the risks are very much over-stated. While it may be possible to forcibly take a firearm from a person, there are measures, such as retention holsters, which make such a thing a very dangerous undertaking. Police and security guards carry openly all the time. I am aware of no great concern about these people being forcibly disarmed.
There is absolutely no justification for stopping a person solely because they are openly carrying a firearm. A couple of generations of gun control, enabled by a silent Supreme Court, and treasonous Circuit Courts, have created a prejudice against the lawful carrying of arms. I am greatly pleased to see this being reversed.
Mentally unfitness for gun ownership is currently defined by Federal Law 118 U.S. C. par. 922(g)(4) and this is to which I referred. A person in a mental hospital only for observation or self-admitted does not come under this prohibition.
This may help allay your fears. I, too, am concerned as to what may be attempted under Executive Order without legislation. But right now, James Holmes own mother would have found it almost impossible to have her adult son committed no matter how odd he might seem. Consider the John DuPont who drove his M114 armored personnel carrier over to his neighbor's house, and asked him to come out and play. John DuPont later shotgunned his personal trainer, but defense claims of legal insanity were rejected.
We have firm protections of individual liberty in place, and yes, they could be altered -- but not as easily as you might think.
We will always be faced with the conundrum that degree of liberty is a statistical problem. That was addressed somewhat by Emile Durkheim, the "father of social science," and popularized by Moynihan in defining how we view deviant behavior. How do you suggest we define it other than by the standards our legislators and courts provide? And how shall we redefine deviancy up or down, rather than leave it alone? Who ought to do the defining?
I certainly hope that it is not left up to the Executive branch to determine!
Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Lurker)
Tell me that Ten Commandments in a theocracy are wrong. In fact, tell me that The Elohim telling Adam that if he ate of that particular tree he would die is wrong. Tell me that God's intent was not to regulate human behavior. Tell me that Adam did not have the liberty to choose to comply.
If you think that having parents to guide your first footsteps is not to regulate your behavior, you are greatly mistaken.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1)
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, qwhich was committed to my trust"(Paul, to his disciple Timothy, 1 Tim. 1:9+).
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well: for so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet. 2:13+). (This is the Peter whom Jesus commanded to be carrying his sidearm, but who used it in a spurt of anger injudiciously and unlawfully on the temple guards.)
I believe that your position as you give it is entirely unscriptural and contrary to the well-thought-out purpose of our Founders: that mankind is fallen, and must have a framework within which to choose righteous behaviors.
Please review your premises.
Does not he ancillary phrase "A well regulated Militia" ring some kind of chord in your noodle? that the regulation applies to the behavior of individuals with regard to arms, not the maneuvers of a military unit?
Criminals are like electricity. They follow the path of least resistance. If someone had been concealed carrying in that theater, do you think it would have stopped Holmes from doing what he did? It didn’t deter those two thugs who tried to hold up an Internet cafe in Florida.
Shall not be infringed. Concealed, open, short barreled shotgun, or a full auto G18.
It is your RIGHT to do so.
Where in Art 1 Sec 8 does it give the FedGov power to even include a Section like 922 in it’s Code of Law?
Take your time we’ll wait...
Well, one guy was...but no good guys. Sensibly, there should have been at least 4-5.
It’s not a different story.
Santo Musotto is a moron. The press only quotes morons to further their anti 2nd A rights.
“COOKEVILLE, TN (WSMV)... The officers explained the policy prohibiting weapons and asked the men to return their guns to their vehicles, which police said they did.
Police said the theater sign showing that weapons are prohibited was not large enough to be seen easily, so officers advised that it should be made more visible.
Oh great. Another conservative who equates God with government.
No wonder we are so screwed.
Actually, I wish it would, in that although open carry is accepted but not encouraged, moving to being a "shall issue" state on the license to carry concealed is in the right direction.
At this time in this state, one must give an acceptable reason for concealed; must have a signed character reference from five adult county residents; supply photos, fingerprints, and fees; publish a notice of intent to apply; and when approved, take a defined gun course. But keeping the license is at the whim of the Superior Court, who can remove it at any time.
This is much better tan in NY, where I was born and raised, that to even buy a handgun one needed a permit; and another premises permit was needed for keeping a gun in your home, another one for a store, etc. Getting a concealed carry permit was then formidable, and not deemed justifiable for most citizens.
I do not think that at this time open carry is advisable for broadly suppressing violent crime, nor very helpful to advancing the interests when concealed carry is a clear option. Concealed carry is shown to have an effect on slowing violent crime occurrence, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Finally, I think it's the concealed licensee whose responsible behavior tends to make him/her more civil and careful in promoting a polite society, to influence legislators and judges, and improve public acceptance more than the open carrier approach. Even the public sees that they have to demonstrate more upfront qualification than required of the open carrier. We'll see on that.
Let me suggest that for your answer you either consult a Constitutional lawyer, or conduct your own research. From a pragmatic point of view, this is the extant law which applies to handgun purchase and possession. In fact, IIRC persons prohibited are not even allowed to own ammo, let alone the firearms.
It’s a law in direct contravention to the plain language of the Constitution. If you can’t figure that out without a lawyer, you’ve got bigger issues than can be resolved in an Internet forum...