TexasCHLforum.com

Lawyer With Gun In New Haven Theater Says He Felt Need For Protection

The lawyer arrested Tuesday after bringing a loaded handgun into a downtown movie theater showing "The Dark Knight Rises," the same movie showing last month when a gunman killed 12 in Colorado, said he felt the need to carry a weapon as protection.

they didn't charge him with carrying but charged him with breach of peace and interfering with police.

"Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right," Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said at the news conference with Esserman on Wednesday. "Just like we don't want people to go into a theater and yell 'Fire!' we don't expect people to go into a movie theater with a gun."

but mr mayor he was legal and we want to thank you for stepping on his rights


http://www.courant.com/community/new-ha ... 3955.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Police said Hwang was charged not because he brought a gun to a movie theater, but because he did not comply with police officers' orders when they confronted him in the theater.

Observation #1: When you have 20 LEO's with their weapons drawn ordering you to put your hands up, comply - its the law and should be fairly easy to follow at that point. He just gives anti-gun people ammunition. He did a stupid thing and is lucky he wasn't shot.

Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right," Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said at the news conference with Esserman on Wednesday. "Just like we don't want people to go into a theater and yell 'Fire!' we don't expect people to go into a movie theater with a gun."

Observation #2: Mr. Mayor, it is still illegal to yell "Fire!" in a movie theater.

Observation #3: If you can legally carry in a movie theater (I wouldn't go into one if I couldn't), expect law abiding citizens to exercise their right - as they should.

Observation #4: Just because something is legal actually does make it right in the eyes of the law.

It must be an election year or something.

So was he in fact open carrying? Or was it a failure to conceal?

Failure to adequately conceal.... (not necessarily an offense, just bad CC technique)
Then... failure to obey police instructions...

Lucky he wasn't shot...

From the OP's referenced article...

Police said Hwang was charged not because he brought a gun to a movie theater, but because he did not comply with police officers' orders when they confronted him in the theater.
...............
Police rushed to the Criterion, at 86 Temple St., at about 10 p.m. after receiving calls about an armed man in the theater.
..............
When officers located the armed man, whom they later identified as Hwang, they drew their weapons and ordered him to put his hands up. Police said he did not comply and remained in his seat using his cellphone.

RoyGBiv wrote:Failure to adequately conceal.... (not necessarily an offense, just bad CC technique)
Then... failure to obey police instructions...

Lucky he wasn't shot...

From the OP's referenced article...

Police said Hwang was charged not because he brought a gun to a movie theater, but because he did not comply with police officers' orders when they confronted him in the theater.
...............
Police rushed to the Criterion, at 86 Temple St., at about 10 p.m. after receiving calls about an armed man in the theater.
..............
When officers located the armed man, whom they later identified as Hwang, they drew their weapons and ordered him to put his hands up. Police said he did not comply and remained in his seat using his cellphone.

Now, obviously, when surrounded by police with guns pointed at you it would certainly be a real good idea to comply. However, I'm wondering about the legality of their orders in the first place. The guy hadn't done anything illegal, so were the police's actions lawful? How many people think all charges will be dropped?

Was he failing to conceal or was he actually open carrying?

SQLGeek wrote:Was he failing to conceal or was he actually open carrying?

The way the article reads to me, he was concealing poorly and his gun was spotted, prompting the MWAG call to police.

Just my read...

This guy was smart enough to get a law degree...
but too stupid to properly conceal a handgun...
and kept talking on his cellphone when confronted with armed LEO's? Really?

Sheesh....face plant.

SIA

Mr. Mayor, the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in the theater would have been shooting his gun into the air. The equivalent of walking in with a concealed handugn is walking in with your mouth closed.

Mayor, you're an idiot.............just like all the other idiots.

Was he a plant to make gun carriers look bad? The whole he couldn't properly conceal does sound strange.

Since we have reporters that can barely manage to form a sentence asking them to write a concise flowing article instead of fractured/disjointed pieces of information is futile. I am confused. If police searched the 12 occupants but arrested the lawyer because he remained seated while using his cell phone, was he not one of the 12 occupants?
If someone saw the weapon why didn't they help PO identify the person. The PO weren't even in the right theater. This begins to get scary when the police start ordering an entire group of people to comply with their commands based no one breaking any laws.... until they can trump something up. With full support of an idiot mayor.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:So was he in fact open carrying? Or was it a failure to conceal?

You have to remember that Texas is one of only a handful of states where open carry is illegal.

Whether he was open or concealed, he was perfectly legal in Connecticut.

From opencarry.org http://www.opencarry.org/ct.html

The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

It doesn't really matter whether or not he was concealed, but it was still stupid not to comply. Thats why he got arrested. The rest of the story just illustrates what happens when people who disagree with gun rights get a podium to speak. Are they wrong? I would venture to say all of us on this forum would think so, but there are plenty of others who disagree. When we do something stupid like fail to follow an LEO's orders when tensions are already high, we make anti-gun propaganda seem more reasonable to the general public who may or may not know any better.

Personally, I believe that when we have the right to arm ourselves per the 2nd Amendment and the privilege to carry through various laws - both of which people have fought hard to establish - we owe it to our fellow citizens to 1: Exercise our rights and 2: Be above reproach. We have some really great blessings in this country and we shouldn't take that for granted. Instead, we should be examples of law abiding citizens - not doormats, but people who observe and obey the law, vote, be outstanding citizens in our community, and hopefully role models for the next generation. We're doing great in the crime statistics area, but lets strive to live at the highest standards everywhere else, regardless of what media, politicians, etc. say or think.

In church, I often hear sayings like, "The church is just one generation away from being extinct." I disagree with that statement, but that is a theological discussion for a different forum. However, I do think that is more applicable to the 2nd Amendment. One who enforces his/her concerns (in our case, Constitutional rights) by isolating, polarizing, and abrasively throwing them around in the faces of those who don't understand or have a strongly biased opinion, looks more like a spoiled child to those who don't "get it." And just like a spoiled child, nobody wants to be around that kind of person; nobody wants to listen to the complaints. The child's voice is slowly tuned out and made irrelevant.

I know I've gone off on a tangent here, but if we want to be treated with respect, we need to be worthy of respect - even if we aren't shown it by some people. In fact, there is nothing wrong with being respectful to those who disagree. Sadly, many people blindly accept blanket statements in the media or by people running for office, or simply just don't know how to truly look at statistics correctly. Respectful dialog, even if it doesn't immediately change one's views, goes a lot further than slanderous Facebook posts or venom spat at Liberals, for example. It gets people thinking, questioning, and processing through their own biased opinions (remember, we all are biased one way or another!).

I say that knowing that many, if not most of us seem to already get that. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but I think this news article illustrates the tension about gun laws right now. I guess I'm just thinking as I write this how cool it would be if the gun owners and 2A supporters were the ones that lead the way in restoring civility.

Rrash wrote:From opencarry.org http://www.opencarry.org/ct.html

The permit that Connecticut issues is a carry permit, not a concealed carry permit, so open carry IS legal with a permit.

It doesn't really matter whether or not he was concealed, but it was still stupid not to comply. Thats why he got arrested.

I have a bit of a problem with this... I'm often buried deep in my own little world when I'm doing stuff on my phone, and since my name isn't "hey you", I sometimes don't notice people trying to get my attention while I'm focused on something else. Being off in lala land while sitting in a theater should not be an arrestable offense.

I don't think the guy is stupid at all. In fact I believe his actions were calculated and in the end he will be cashing a very healthy check.