Arrested in Colorado for open carry in Movies....

[destro23 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/colorado-man-arrested-openly-carrying-gun-movie-theater-193011379.html

[Ray Ray 3,566]

anyone notice his shirt?

[destro23 0]

what does it say? can't see it on my phone

[TK421 2]

Apparently it just says "Liberalism".

 

http://delawarereaso...-movie-theater/

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Liberalism is a mental disorder

[TK421 2]

Liberalism is a mental disorder

 

That is what I thought but I originally couldn't find the correct font. Here it is:

 

[Underdog 1,593]

Sounds like a wackadoodle looking for attention, to me. I wonder if he is secretly on Soros's payroll to make conservatism look bad by showing himself as idiotic. Still, that is a nice shirt.

[njpilot 671]

Love the shirt!

[Krdshrk 3,878]

I'm having a hard time telling if this is legit or not... Thornton's an open carry district.... so what's the problem here?

[fumanchu182 23]

I'm having a hard time telling if this is legit or not... Thornton's an open carry district.... so what's the problem here?

 

Businesses can still prevent his entry. If he doesn't leave then it's considered trespassing?

[Krdshrk 3,878]

Yeah but that's a civil matter, not criminal. He was outright arrested.

[PK90 3,573]

It would be a criminal charge in NJ if you are told to leave and did not.

[Soju 153]

He was arrested on a city ordinance weapons violation, not on trespassing.

[BigHayden 77]

So CO doesn't have preemption? This sounds like a an example of why that's needed everywhere.

 

I'm not sure why you would think he's a "whackadoodle". He didn't make a scene or anything, and open carry is pretty common in CO. I think this is overreaction by both the patrons of the movie theater and the PD. Not that we'll ever hear about it, but my guess is that the charges get dropped.

[voyager9 3,443]

So CO doesn't have preemption? This sounds like a an example of why that's needed everywhere. I'm not sure why you would think he's a "whackadoodle". He didn't make a scene or anything, and open carry is pretty common in CO. I think this is overreaction by both the patrons of the movie theater and the PD. Not that we'll ever hear about it, but my guess is that the charges get dropped.

 

I don't think I'd say the patron overreacted.. Even being uninformed they handled it pretty well.. discretely called the PD (vs freaking out). It was the wrong action, given CO's open carry policies, but it was discrete.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Legal and smart are two different things. To open carry in a movie theater 2 weeks after a movie theater shooting in a neighboring town... stupid. Regardless of it's legality, anyone with half a brain cell would assume it would likely cause a stir. I don't think he should have been arrested if it was a legal carry, they should have just asked him to leave. His shirt probably didn't help, makes him look like he is out to cause a stir [not that I disagree with the shirt's statement].

[BigHayden 77]

I don't think I'd say the patron overreacted.. Even being uninformed they handled it pretty well.. discretely called the PD (vs freaking out). It was the wrong action, given CO's open carry policies, but it was discrete.

 

So a man engaged in legal activity is openly carrying a gun in a holster, while not threatening anyone or otherwise committing a crime, and you don't believe it's an overreaction to call the police on him?

[voyager9 3,443]

So a man engaged in legal activity is openly carrying a gun in a holster, while not threatening anyone or otherwise committing a crime, and you don't believe it's an overreaction to call the police on him?

I don't claim to know the caller's awareness of CO's gun laws or firearms. If the caller had zero experience with them, and does not know what's legal and what is not, then calling the police is not an overreaction. It may not be the RIGHT reaction, but given the circumstances it's not a reach either.

 

I'm a little surprised that the guy got as far as he did.. He walked into the lobby, bought a ticket, walked through the theater, sat down, and it wasn't until the lights went out and the movie started that someone dialed 911. Now, either everyone who saw him realized that what he was doing is legal.. both patrons and employees.. until we get to the lady sitting next to him.. or nobody noticed..

[Soju 153]

So a man engaged in legal activity is openly carrying a gun in a holster, while not threatening anyone or otherwise committing a crime, and you don't believe it's an overreaction to call the police on him?

 

I agree. It really drives me crazy. But it happens, and will continue to happen, as long as people remain ignorant and the media continues to criminalize gun owners.

[Texan 1]

He was arrested on a city ordinance weapons violation, not on trespassing.

 

Can you clairify, I always get these things wrong. If it is a private business open to the public, how is it a city ordinance, or how is the city involved? It would still be a matter of trespassing wouldn't it, and civil being a private company?

[Soju 153]

Can you clairify, I always get these things wrong. If it is a private business open to the public, how is it a city ordinance, or how is the city involved? It would still be a matter of trespassing wouldn't it, and civil being a private company?

 

It could only be trespassing under a couple of conditions.

 

1. If he was asked to leave by someone authorized to make that call (business owner, manager in charge at the time, etc), and then refused to do so.

2. He was not allowed to be there to begin with (on private property, a closed business, just as examples)

 

If it is one of those, then that can become a criminal matter. As you noted, it was a business open to the public, so he could not be trespassing as from what I read, he was not asked to leave by theater staff. That is why he was not arrested for trespassing. Because he wasn't.

 

What he was arrested for, was apparently violating a city ordnance on possession of a dangerous weapon.

 

"It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess on or about the person or within such person's immediate reach any dangerous weapon."

 

What is interesting here is, the term "dangerous weapon" is defined to mean

 

"any artificial knuckles, bow, crossbow, machine gun, short rifle, or shotgun, knife, nunchaku, spikes, throwing star, as defined in this subsection, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is used, is intended to produce bodily injury."

 

Not included is a pistol, as that is included in the very next definition, for firearm.

 

"Firearm means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable of or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges or other explosive charges, excluding gas guns, as defined in Section 38-239(a)."

 

What this seems to mean, is that they are not applying the proper ordinance. He, by definition, was not possessing a statutorily defined 'dangerous weapon'. He was possessing, by definition, a firearm, which is separate. Furthermore, if he was possessing a 'dangerous weapon', why would they have a specific ordinance on concealed firearms, and open carrying of a firearm? Well, they wouldn't.

 

Here is what the city says about open carrying, which he was not charged with (according to the article).

 

"Sec. 38-241. - Prohibition on the open carrying of firearms.

 

The City of Thornton hereby prohibits the open carrying of a firearm, as defined in Section 38-237 of the Code, in any city building or in or upon any city property including but not limited to parks, open spaces or trails that exist within the City of Thornton and that have a sign posted at the entrance to any city building or city property informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in such building or area."

 

Was the theater a 'city building'? Did that theater have a sign posted prohibiting the open carry of a firearm?

 

Looks like not even that applies.

[Texan 1]

 

 

Good stuff. Crazy the details.

[PeteF 1,044]

Well looks like charges were dropped, and a civil suit against the town is in the works.

 

http://m.denverpost.com/denverpost/pm_9034/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ffTECjXd

[TK421 2]

I found more details here:

 

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/08/james_mapes_gun_theater_charge_dismissed.php

[Xchange1980 0]

I think becuase it was so close to the Aurora shootings cause eh said he has went to the movie theater many other times and never had a problem

[Soju 153]

I think becuase it was so close to the Aurora shootings cause eh said he has went to the movie theater many other times and never had a problem

 

Exactly. Which is why it was an illegal arrest, and they likely KNEW they couldn't arrest him legally. That they did so anyways is a problem we see way too often.