Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Man with legal concealed gun had to leave Salina theater

July 16, 2014

Advertisement

— A man with a legal concealed weapon was asked to leave a Salina movie theater after other customers complained.

Salina police Capt. Mike Sweeney says officers went to the Central Mall movie theater Tuesday when the man became upset when he was asked to leave. The theater reports other customers asked for their money back before the man was asked to leave.

Sweeney says the man had a concealed carry permit and was upset the theater had no signs banning guns. The man cooperated when officers explained that businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone.

The Salina Journal reports an officer saw the outline of a small handgun in a holster under the man's shirt.

Sweeney says the man didn't threaten anyone and no charges are being pursued.

Comments

Scott Quenette 5 months, 1 week ago

That sounds like a free market solution to me. I'm not going to pay to be in a room with someone with a gun so I guess money talks.

Leslie Swearingen 5 months, 1 week ago

I had not thought of that, Scott, but it sounds right. I also did not know that businesses can refuse to serve someone. In the old days all stores and such had that posted on signs. Didn't that end with the Civil Rights Act?

Scott Quenette 5 months, 1 week ago

If 2 or 3 people decide they don't want to be there and ask for a refund, does it make business sense to refund one or many? Seems to me the theater owner made a decision based on the bottom line.

Gabe Hoffman 5 months, 1 week ago

Leslie-
Nice try. Every business has the right to refuse service, unless it's based on race/sex/religion etc. If business don't want guns, people without shirts and shoes or if they are unkempt, they can decline assistance or services. Buy great effort comparing a CC to real discrimination.

Leslie Swearingen 5 months, 1 week ago

I wasn't trying anything. Civil Rights is the only time I have ever heard that and so I asked. I totally forgot about the signs saying no shirt or shoes, no service.

Robert Rauktis 5 months, 1 week ago

Sorry Gabe…Leslie's got a memory. That was the sign and usually the intent …back then.

Bud Stagg 5 months, 1 week ago

I bet every time you go to the movies or to dinner or anywhere there are at least 50 people, there is someone in the room with a gun. The issue is, is it a licensed person or unlicensed person. If you ban the licensed people, then you are in the room with just the unlicensed people who ignore the law and are probably crazy or just bad guys. I'd rather no one had guns. If a gun free zone can't be guaranteed, I'd rather have a licensed person who could possibly defend me against the bad, crazy people with guns. Very, very few shootings involve licensed people, most incidents involve unlicensed gun carriers.

Philipp Wannemaker 5 months, 1 week ago

the bad, crazy people with guns might also have a CC permit. I personally think no one needs a CC permit without a very valid reason. Transporting money, jewelry or the like is what I consider a valid reason, not some paranoid fear that they can defend the world/ Look at what happened in Vegas with CC man who got in the middle.

Scott Quenette 5 months, 1 week ago

If I'm made aware that a person has a gun, licensed or not, I will remove myself from that situation. My decision.

Greg Cooper 5 months, 1 week ago

So, licensed carriers are not "crazy or just bad guys"? I was not aware that a concealed carry permit suddenly made you sane and a good guy. That eases my mind considerably. NOT.

Greg Cooper 5 months, 1 week ago

So, you are saying that concealed carry holders are automatically sane and good guys. Got it.

James Howlette 5 months, 1 week ago

If I notice the gun, they're doing it wrong.

Bruce Bertsch 5 months, 1 week ago

Will a cc really be able to defend you? After all, they have training, but not for shooting at human targets. The whole "more good guys with guns" argument would seem to be a straw man when looked at rationally. Why is that we are the only nation where more guns are the answer? Look at the rate of gun related death and then explain why more is better.

Scott Burkhart 5 months, 1 week ago

Thank you, Bruce, for your completely uninformed opinion on guns.

Eric MacDonald 5 months, 1 week ago

While gun related deaths in England and Australia are not as high as here in the US the rate of home invasion and other violent crimes, including murder are staggeringly high. There is still violence, just not gun violence. I think the opposition to firearms is the straw argument.

James Howlette 5 months, 1 week ago

That's some nice wishful thinking, but it turns out that the intentional homicide rate is much lower in all of those other countries than it is in the United States. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/countries/US-EU-AU-GB?display=graph

Eric MacDonald 5 months ago

The reason for the high rate in the US is reflective of gang violence which overwhelmingly exaggerates the crime stats for the US. When you take those numbers out you will find our rate of violence far more comparable. This denotes that the issue in the US is not as much a gun issue as it is a gang culture which is not as prevalent in these other nations. Too this ignores the historic crime rates in these countries. After guns were banned the rate of gun violence did decrease but the rate of violent crime did not and in fact in some categories increase significantly and remains high. It also fails to take into account the rampant miscategorization of crimes by law enforcement in England. It is well documented in England that this is being done by law enforcement in that country.

James Howlette 5 months ago

Except for all the violence and murders, our rates of violence and murders are much lower! You're really just moving the goalposts at this point. Eventually you'll find a statistic you like, but I think you're just repeating some half-fact you heard from some website somewhere instead of doing some actual research.

Andrew Dufour 5 months ago

couldn't one make the argument that stronger gun control may result in less guns in the hands of gang members and thus less gang related gun deaths?

Scott Burkhart 5 months, 1 week ago

All of you can rest assured that I will not patronize an establishment that refuses to allow citizens to exercise their second amendment right and participate in a legal activity. So, if you see me in a business in town you can be sure about one of two things: 1) I am unarmed or 2) The establishment permits me to carry a concealed weapon. Now you have to decide which it is.

Philipp Wannemaker 5 months, 1 week ago

And if I see you or anyone else in any business and I become aware you have a weapon, I will immediately leave, my choice.

Andrew Dufour 5 months, 1 week ago

That sounded ominously like a thinly veiled threat there Scott. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Plus why would you ever be unarmed, if you're only going to patronize businesses that allow you to be armed wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to assume you're always armed.

Scott Burkhart 5 months ago

Just like a lib to make something out of nothing. I do not have a ccp and I do not patronize businesses that restrict this 2nd amendment right unless I am left with no choice.

Sarah Johnson 5 months ago

How on earth does a private business or owner of private property restrict a constitutional right?

Amy Varoli Elliott 5 months, 1 week ago

I missed the part of the second amendment where we are granted the right to carry guns around where ever we please. It simple grants us the right to own them.

Andrew Dufour 5 months, 1 week ago

Exactly, there is a severe disconnect with the second amendment when compared to basically any other right. We all have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, protection from search and seizure, right against self incrimination, freedom to contract (Obviously could go on and on). The second amendment seems to be the only one that proponents of said freedom believe it should be 100% unregulated, it is an absolute freedom unlike every other freedom in the constitution.

Fred Mertz 5 months, 1 week ago

Andrew, there aren't any restrictions on the first amendment that limit how you exercise it, except those that harm others.

No limit on which type of speech you use, words you can use - mono vs multi syllable words, etc.

No background check or fees to exercise right of free speech.

Andrew Dufour 5 months, 1 week ago

You're kidding that there are no limits on my free speech right? There are plenty of areas where speech is limited for a variety of reasons. School's for instance severely limit the speech that students are permitted to express in School, (think about the black arm bands protesting the Vietnam War). Speech is always censored around certain events (think "free speech zones")

Fred Mertz 5 months, 1 week ago

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Kevin Elliott 5 months, 1 week ago

A partial quote, not a valid argument. If you are going to pick and choose which facts you use and which facts you ignore, how can you expect anyone to give you any credibility. I suggest either more honesty and integrity in your argument, or to better educate yourself on what the words in the Constitution mean when hosted in their entirety... such as ... as a part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

We have freedom of speech, but we do not have the right to exercise it on someone elses private property. We have freedom of religion, but we do not have the right to force others to share our faith (well, unless you work for Hobby Lobby),

Please, if you are going to join the debate, do not be shrill, do not scream sound bites, try to apply facts and logic to support your opinion.

My opinion, is the man in question had the right to have his gun before he went to the movie, and he retained his right after he went to the movie. His right was not infringed because the right does not extend to what he does on someone elses private property. The courts have clearly decided businesses have the right to make their own rules about such things that happen on their property, exactly the same as a movie theatre does not have to allow someone selling goods, services, religion or opinions at their theatre.

Eric MacDonald 5 months, 1 week ago

I think you may have missed the entire intent of the Constitution as well as the 2nd amendment. The Constitution was written to ensure that all liberties belong to the individual unless the Constitution specifically granted the authority to the Government to have power over it. Therefore I must have missed the part that said the Government had the authority to restrict this liberty. And in further clarification the founder wrote "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Infringed= to limit or undermine. This speaks to a limitation on the Government. To keep refers to owning and to bear refers to carrying.

Andrew Dufour 5 months, 1 week ago

Has this debate devolved to the point where we actually have to debate if the government is permitted to restrict a particular freedom in literally any way. There is a strong argument to be made that the second amendment doesn't actually create an individual right to bear arms but I'll leave that alone for now. By your logic there should be literally nowhere that you are not permitted to carry a gun and literally no restriction on what guns or weapons you're permitted to purchase?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months ago

I think you have every right to bear any kind of arms that were used when the constitution was written. Do you really think if the writers of our constitution could have foreseen the efficient killing machines we now have, they might have written the 2nd amendment a lot differently and more detailed?

Randall Uhrich 5 months, 1 week ago

The odds of MY getting shot are exponentially greater if ANY gun-carriers are present. I have very little faith in a licensed gun bearer in protecting me from an unlicensed shooter. I'm just as likely to get shot in the exchange. Leave your stupid guns at home.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months, 1 week ago

I would say that he is in violation of the concealed carry anyway, if his gun was so obvious.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months ago

"The Salina Journal reports an officer saw the outline of a small handgun in a holster under the man's shirt." If the officer could see the outline, that's how the complaining patrons saw that he had a gun. How else would they even know he had one?

Mark Jakubauskas 5 months, 1 week ago

Simple solution: Any time you see someone with a firearm in a store, movie theater, wherever - call 911 to report "Man with a gun" at that establishment. Not a false report...and if enough companies get sick of a dozen cop cars showing up and evacuating the building for these calls, they'll apply the only kind of political pressure that the legislatures seem to listen to these days - corporate voices.

Leslie Swearingen 5 months, 1 week ago

Perfect answer Mark, simple, direct and to the point. I will certainly do that. Thank you.

Tom Thomson 5 months, 1 week ago

So you'll waste the Police's time because you are afraid of a person who is lawfully carrying a firearm? I'd much rather they spend their time dealing with REAL crime, not your hoplophobia.

Philipp Wannemaker 5 months, 1 week ago

But when you see a person carrying a firearm, how do you know it's legal? Do they wear a sign saying I'm legal? If so, what is purpose of CC? Obviously they lack skills to carry concealed. Seems as if they must proclaim, I'm carrying a weapon. But, then I'm not paranoid person.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months ago

How do you know if his gun is legal and how do you know he isn't a crazy person ready to shoot up the place? You can't look at a person and determine if he is the good guy or the bad guy. I don't know why you NRA members can't understand that.

Eric MacDonald 5 months, 1 week ago

This exactly how this should have gone down. The business is well within its right to refuse service to this man for the reason that they did. To be clear though he committed no crime and was well within his rights to lodge his complaint as were the customers that complained about him. He could have however prevented the situation by being more careful in concealing his firearm. That said the theater did choose a side on this occasion and the consequence in the future may be that other concealed carry holders may choose not to do business with them. The free market at work.

Fred Mertz 5 months, 1 week ago

Why is it okay for a business to deny him service but not okay to not bake a cake for a gay couple?

Sexual orientation is not a protected class so why is okay for a business to deny service in one case but not the other other than you don't like guns but like gays?

For the record I think a business should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason they want.

I do not have a problem with a business denying service to the gun owner, but I do think it is wrong to deny service to gays.

Finally, how concealed was the gun if people saw it?

Andrew Dufour 5 months, 1 week ago

We could spend all day talking about how discrimination against sexual orientation and discrimination against gun owners are two completely different animals but I'll just keep it very simple, being gay is not a choice, carrying your gun to a store is. You can't leave your gay in your car, you can leave your gun in your car. A gay individual cannot murder someone else with a bullet of gay, you could (not saying CC people would) murder someone with a bullet bullet.

Also the courts are really unclear when discussing homosexuality, they do sort of treat it as a protected class when dealing with equal protection requirements.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months ago

I suppose they can allow people with guns, but if you have 3 people who want to be in a place with no guns, asking for their money back, and you have 1 guy with a gun, who are you going to ask to leave? Well, if you want to stay in business and make a profit anyway. If you are filthy rich, and don't need the business, then you would ask the 3 people to leave.

Mike Ford 5 months, 1 week ago

Firstly as a gun owner and a Democrat I'm secure enough in myself that I don't have to go anywhere strapped up. I don't have an inferiority complex or a hero complex. I'm not asking any of these wannabe police officers to save my life. I'll leave that to the trained and professional actual law enforcement officers. I'd hate to be them in a situation when they roll up on Ricky Bobby Rambo wannabe and the armed perpetrator and decide which one they're going to trust. The Second Amendment never stated that one could take their inferiority complex into public against the public's will. It states that it's okay to have a weapon at home and to hunt and do target shooting with. I survived being a food delivery driver in Central Topeka between 1992 and 1996 once talking a young kid with a 25 Cal. Raven out of robbing me in the summer of 1993 on Western St. in Topeka. Smarts are more effective than being armed and weapons are a last choice in a situation. When was this forgotten?

Scott Burkhart 5 months ago

Tell me, Mr. "Smarts", where does it delineate in the second amendment where and when a gun may be kept and used as well as the type of gun that is acceptable. Maybe this is another meaning found in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. Maybe you are just trying to rewrite some history. Again.

Mike Ford 5 months ago

Tell me where it says that any paranoid half sane minority-bashing end of the world tin foil hat wearing nerd can walk into a restaurant strapped on unsuspecting patrons and not have them say something? I didn't ask for Joe Dirt's rent a cop impersonation with cc in the first place. My father, my wife, and I were en route to Omaha to catch the Amtrak (California Zephyr) from here a couple of months ago and went into a pizza joint in Perry. In walks a field hand with a 1911 45. cal pistol strapped to his side. I gave him half a pass because he might run into a poisonous snake in a crop field. If not for that we tell the counter people to cancel our order and we leave. We are SANE gun owners. We don't look to politicize an issue to create a smokescreen for political gain. WE THINK. The language was very broad in the original decree to begin with but I think it's time to clarify the language in the second amendment to rein in political profiteers and bring sanity back to gun ownership.

David Reber 5 months, 1 week ago

I always find it amusing in cases like this when self-proclaimed constitutional scholars cry foul -ranting about how somebody's rights have been trampled. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments place restrictions on the government. Last I checked, a movie theater isn't the government.

Bob Reinsch 5 months, 1 week ago

Local businesses need to do what is right for local businesses. Any number of well-dressed professional people might be walking carrying concealed weapons. I understand that, but if I see people who's motives aren't clear, walking around looking like paramilitary wannabes and carrying assault rifles, I might reevaluate my need to patronize that particular retailer at that time. Amazon.com's website doesn't frighten me like licensed gun owners that might be down to their last nerve, and I don't have to worry about some "militia" when I'm shopping from home.

Bob Smith 5 months ago

Every state in the union has some form of legalized concealed carry now. Get used to it, hysterics.

Philipp Wannemaker 5 months ago

Problem with CC is it's too easy to get permit and too many paranoid people get them. Why does any normal person need to have a weapon on them everywhere they go? If you feel a need for that, maybe you need to not go into those places.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months ago

You are so right. The CC training is minimal on how to use a gun. They just go over all the laws and some gun safety, but nothing that any Joe or Jane Blow couldn't pass. Has there ever been any of the trainers who have turned down someone, because they seemed a little unstable? I doubt it.

Bob Smith 5 months ago

Have you actually gone thru the Kansas training and taken the test? Or are you just repeating somebody's talking point?

Philipp Wannemaker 5 months ago

Yes, have permit and any idiot can do same, No real skills or common sense required. Just pay fee and you will get permit.

Eric MacDonald 4 months, 2 weeks ago

But you don't know and yet that didn't stop you from speculating. Hard to argue against those facts...

Mike Ford 5 months ago

wait till the kochs start losing.

Bob Smith 5 months ago

You and Harry Reid with your obsessions.

Mike Ford 5 months ago

you and your archie bunker fauxnews delusions........

Bob Smith 5 months ago

I do not watch FOX news. That is another thing you are wrong about.

Philipp Wannemaker 5 months ago

So, you get all your information from Limbaugh and the Washington Times?

Bob Smith 5 months ago

Nope, neither of those. You disappointed progressives need to start using some argument besides an appeal to spite.

Mike Ford 5 months ago

why would they need to listen to sources? they make stuff up.

Bobby Lee 5 months ago

Just so I got this straight, a private business owner can refuse service to anyone they choose. Which I agree with even though I support CC and think they made a dumb decision. But a Christian bakery owner can't refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding, and is in fact forced to do so by the government? Hmmmm

Sarah Johnson 5 months ago

Because discriminating against people for being who they are and not wanting deadly weapons on your property are totally comparable.

Jim Slade 5 months ago

Bobby aches for the days of "Whites Only" places.

Jim Slade 5 months ago

Can the concealed carrier place their weapon in the vehicle and still get served? Yes.

Can a homosexual stop being a homosexual? No. It's who they are.

Shawn Herrman 5 months ago

This isn't meant to pass judgement on anyone I don't know or to speculate on everyone. My experience with gun advocates and those that have CC are EXTREME. This doesn't place them as criminals or anything of the like, just saying that they are so out to prove their right to bear arms they actually become engulfed in the idea. I've seen my friends start by becoming interested in guns as a sport then eventually it becomes a power trip. It gets to a point that it's intimidating because you start to sense an extreme tendency toward their gun rights. This isn't something that any CC class can address because they are of like mind. I like many others that have mentioned would excuse myself from any situation that involves a gun in a public place.

Joshua Cain 5 months ago

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry G.

I think your experience with gun advocates is a rare one and possibly mischaracterized. Just like the fabled CC gun nuts that supposedly put everyone more at risk. Where is the rash of CC miscreants that were supposed to accidentally shoot everyone?

You're going to have some misuse by "gun nuts" but by in large and overwhelmingly so, they secure their weapons very well and aren't the wild west lose cannons they're made out to be.

To be extreme in defense of your civil liberties and rights is the American way.

You might want to excuse yourself from any situation that involves a gun in a public place but the victims of gun violence don't have that option in most cases. At least give them a fighting chance in the unlikely event that they will find themselves needing a firearm to protect themselves.

Mike Ford 5 months ago

It's funny but I haven't heard of or read of a single situation where cc stopped a crime recently. I remember reading both Guns and Ammo and the NRA magazine as a ten year old in 1980 and they would a page or two devoted to newspaper stories where an armed home owner stopped an intruder and the like but I don't hear of any cc holders really stopping actual crimes. It seems more like a subconscious attempt to politicize the gun issue and stoke their paranoia and ego at the same time hoping they're in the right place at the right time to play Rambo. I hope I'm not there and I am gun owner.

Bob Smith 5 months ago

If you follow TTAG, you will find links to stories of defensive gun usage on a regular basis.

Joshua Cain 5 months ago

According to the Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence report commissioned by the current President there are at least 108,000 annual defensive uses...at the bare minimum.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies were asked to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.” per one of the 23 EO's handed down from the Administration after Sandy Hook.

From the study: Defensive use of firearms page 15

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15

"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

According to the report the figure is between 3 million and 108,000 annually.

While the 108 K figure is difficult to interpret for reasons mentioned in the report...the low ball figure is still an impressive number when you consider that According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 68,720 people were murdered in firearm-related violence between 2007 and 2011.

108,000 people get to live another day every year.

Joshua Cain 5 months ago

This was s double post from what the browser described as an internal server error.

See the above comment as it was originally posted.

Dan Eyler 4 months, 4 weeks ago

I enjoyed Lunch today at a prominent eatery with pistol firmly strapped to my waist. No worries, no disturbances. No big deal. I asked my wife how many people in a very crowded restaurant she though we're armed. She said more than just me. I have a hunch she was right. Im just curious how many victims there are in each situation we wait for the police to arrive. I can't recall a single event where a criminal used a weapon in violence that police arrived before a citizen was injured or killed.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.