Gun Store Owner Charged for Carrying AR-15 at Texas Mall Before Heading to His Business

[RobertNashville]

"Though Texas is an open carry state, a gun store owner in the city of Beaumont is facing a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace for carrying his AR-15 rifle across his shoulder through a shopping mall.

 

Derek Poe, 26, owns Golden Triangle Tactical at the Beaumont Parkdale Mall. KBMT-TV reports that he entered the Game Stop store in the mall before going to his own store.

 

Beaumont Police Sgt. Rob Flores told the Houston Chronicle that Poe turned himself in on Friday after the district attorney’s office issued a warrant for his arrest. The mall incident occurred on Dec. 28.

Flores said authorities got calls from shoppers who said they were “very afraid,” “terrified” and “thought they were going to die.”

However, Poe said he was operating within the law."

 

Full Story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/07/gun-store-owner-arrested-for-carrying-ar-15-at-texas-mall-before-heading-to-his-business/

[mikegideon]

Disturbing the peace isn't a gun charge. I don't recon it matters if Voldemort Jr. was legal. Expect to see this more. Disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

[Raoul]

Once again, there's a time and a place for everything.

[mikegideon]

Once again, there's a time and a place for everything.

 

I'm guessing the judge may quote you, right before he fines his ass.

[Jonnin]

Not as cut and dried as some moron trying to make a point.  Here (from the story) we have a guy that owns a GUN SHOP in THAT MALL an has A GUN.  Transporting your goods to and from your store or carrying goods that could be bought in said store into another shop in the same complex should not justify any charges at all.   Possibly not the brightest thing to do, but not worthy of news nor arrest.   Or are they really going to uphold this and claim that *anyone* who buys from his shop and carries the goods on to other stores is a criminal??

[gjohnsoniv]

Yeah I really can't side with the guy on this one.  In MY opinion he should have cased it and more than likely this would not have happened. 

[TGO David]

Not as cut and dried as some moron trying to make a point.  Here (from the story) we have a guy that owns a GUN SHOP in THAT MALL an has A GUN.  Transporting your goods to and from your store or carrying goods that could be bought in said store into another shop in the same complex should not justify any charges at all.   Possibly not the brightest thing to do, but not worthy of news nor arrest.   Or are they really going to uphold this and claim that *anyone* who buys from his shop and carries the goods on to other stores is a criminal??

 

We've really got to get past the idea that there's a loophole to justify the lack of common sense every time someone does something legal but stupid.  If it was inventory, it could have and should have been cased or cartoned.

[Jonnin]

We've really got to get past the idea that there's a loophole to justify the lack of common sense every time someone does something legal but stupid.  If it was inventory, it could have and should have been cased or cartoned.

 

Or, we need to get past the idea that doing something legal is a crime anyway because it offended or startled someone.

[mikegideon]

Or, we need to get past the idea that doing something legal is a crime anyway because it offended or startled someone.

 

When I lived in Texas, you were likely to get your ass whipped for being an idiot. I seriously doubt that that spirit is completely gone. I wish they would go back to wood batons. Something about the sound of that crack upside the head that was very effective.

[RobertNashville]

Or, we need to get past the idea that doing something legal is a crime anyway because it offended or startled someone.

Considering the mass shootings that have happened in just the past couple of years combined with the simple truth that most of society, apparently even in Texas, are not used to seeing people walking around with firearms...given that, the reaction of some of the people in the mall was entirely predictable (and I think, understandable).

It would be nice if seeing a law abiding citizen exercising his right to carry arms didn't cause any alarm or fear among other people but that's NOT the society we live in today and ignoring that simple fact does not do anything good for firearm owners.

[TGO David]

Or, we need to get past the idea that doing something legal is a crime anyway because it offended or startled someone.

 

If you'll notice, though, the crime he was charged with was disturbing the peace.  If you are legally allowed to do a thing, but abuse the right to do that thing for shock value, there can be consequences.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

If the mall didnt care an the game stop didnt care it should have been a non issue. I assume his stor an game stop have the same customers so they  would not  care an the mall takes his rent checks...

 

He was carrying well within the law an the disorderly charge which is unconstitutionally vague requires showing "intent to cause fear." Slung on his back with hands full an carrying to an from a tacti-cool store in the mall that he owns, I dont see that flying.

[Oh Shoot]

If you'll notice, though, the crime he was charged with was disturbing the peace.  If you are legally allowed to do a thing, but abuse the right to do that thing for shock value, there can be consequences.

 

Also note that even though carrying a loaded long gun is apparently a legal niche there,  open carry of a handgun is prohibited in Texas, so folks aren't even as used to seeing that sort of thing as here in TN. And top if off with it being one of them scary assault weapons that the occasional psycho shoots up malls with, and ...  well.

 

- OS

[LI0NSFAN]

why was the mag still in?

[mikegideon]

If you'll notice, though, the crime he was charged with was disturbing the peace.  If you are legally allowed to do a thing, but abuse the right to do that thing for shock value, there can be consequences.

 

leave it to our friends in Texas to figure out how to do it right. If the judge or a jury rule that he was disturbing the peace, then that is that.

[mikegideon]

If the mall didnt care an the game stop didnt care it should have been a non issue. I assume his stor an game stop have the same customers so they  would not  care an the mall takes his rent checks...

 

He was carrying well within the law an the disorderly charge which is unconstitutionally vague requires showing "intent to cause fear." Slung on his back with hands full an carrying to an from a tacti-cool store in the mall that he owns, I dont see that flying.

 

I'm afraid the constitution ain't even gonna come up when you're charged for being an obnoxious dumbass.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

why was the mag still in?

From what I have read... Not even sure it comes out, its a sales prop an may not be a real gun.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I'm afraid the constitution ain't even gonna come up when you're charged for being an obnoxious dumbass.

I am also reading he has money an a good lawyer so I would not bet on that one ether.

[mikegideon]

I am also reading he has money an a good lawyer so I would not bet on that one ether.

 

They're going to argue the constitution over a disturbing the peace charge? You're shittin' me, right?

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

If I was in his shoes an had the money I would..

[mikegideon]

If I was in his shoes an had the money I would..

 

I've been around quite a few judges over the years. I don't recall one that would let it get thru his BS filter. Everything just ain't big enough to go to the Supreme Court.

Edited January 7, 2014 by mikegideon

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I've been around quite a few judges over the years. I don't recall one that would let it get thru his BS filter. Everything just ain't big enough to go to the Supreme Court.

Dont know, I just know what the lawyers are saying...
 
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=256472
Only quoting a lawyer that is also  a LEO but a lot of good debate here.
 

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
( B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or
(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

( B) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(f) Subsections (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) do not apply to a person who, at the time the person engaged in conduct prohibited under the applicable subdivision, was a student in the sixth grade or a lower grade level, and the prohibited conduct occurred at a public school campus during regular school hours.

Disorderly conduct should not fly for this conduct.

The army veteran owns a tactical equipment shop in the mall and was carrying his display rifle on his back, not in his hands.

While carrying in a mall this way is not something I would do, I also would not have arrested him. I do not expect the prosecutor to pursue the charges.

That question (about manner calculated to alarm) was not aimed at you, WGTactical, but asked more generally (of course you are more than welcome to answer). It is not, however, a question about the wisdom of this veteran's action or whether you approve. The TX disorderly conduct law has certain elements, all of which must be violated (and proven to have been violated) in order for there to be a conviction.

If one of the elements is "calculated to alarm," then there must be more than merely "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon," otherwise every cub scout who shows off his pocketknife would be arrested.

So how do they go about proving it was in a "manner calculated to alarm?"

It cannot be mall = calculated to alarm, because the "public place" element is a separate element of the offense. The manner is an entirely separate element.

How does the state satisfy its burden in this case?

Question, if displaying it peacefully slung on the back while drinking a slurpee is "a manner calculated to alarm," then HOW could he have displayed it without it being in a manner calculated to alarm?

Hiding it in a case is not displaying it.

Oh an the SN Truth I think is a well known person living in Tn... Edited January 7, 2014 by RebelCowboySnB

[Guest TankerHC]

I notice the article doesnt tell the story. This guy is a friend of one of my close relatives and her friends, all shooters. Just got off the phone with her and she was telling me about it. She, I and some of her friends were in their a few months ago.  He doesnt just own the store in Parkdale Mall, there is a second store on 11th Street. The Leftists have been trying to get him thrown out of the Mall for a while. Now they are gloating. I see in another article they called his store a "Tea Party Porn Shop" and now that he has been arrested the Mall management will finally throw him out to avoid publicity.

 

 

The day of the incident was also the day of the Open Carry Freedom March. He had the rifle slung over the back of his shoulder, barrel down. What the people I know do not get is that people open carry (EDIT: rifles in and out of the store) in Parkdale all the time. No one else seems to "terrify" the public. That open carry freedom march had the proper permits, he stopped in the Game Stop on the way to his own store. From what I was told, he was early, the permit for the march had not gone into effect, but everyone was well aware there was an Open Carry March to take place.

 

Seems to me the "terrified" customers saw an opportunity to have a businessman they didn't like thrown out of the Mall, which was one of their goals. Oh, and he is correct, you can open carry anywhere in Texas. 

 

BTW, the guy is fighting it and no doubt he will win. (Maybe), but some of my relatives other friends think this might be a publicity stunt for the store. His gun store is IN THE MALL! Does the exchange between the cop and the "perpetrator" seem a little scripted? I dont know. But the BPD are Customers in his store. 

Edited January 7, 2014 by TankerHC

[94user]

When will these legal eagles realize that they are hurting the image of a lawful gun owner  much more than they think they are helping?

[TripleDigitRide]

While I wouldn't be one to OC an AR, I can't help but be a little disturbed by situations where people are charged with a crime simply because someone felt uncomfortable. Strictly from a legal standpoint, other than a little common sense (we hope), what's preventing someone who's OCing a handgun from being charged for the same crime?