Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/11/texas-gun-bullies-use-semi-automatics-to-terrorize-mothers-against-guns-nra-remains-silent/

On Saturday, the Texas chapter of “Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America” (MDA) was holding a membership meeting at the Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington when a convoy of cars and trucks carrying members of “Open Carry Texas”—a group supporting open carry of weapons in the state—pulled into the restaurant’s parking lot.

The ambassadors of Open Carry had come to let their objection to MDA be known, electing to so by pulling weapons from their vehicle trunks and parading menacingly with their guns in an effort to intimidate those inside the Blue Mesa.

As you might imagine, the protest was effective—terrifying the occupants of the restaurant which included both those participating in MDA meeting and innocent diners with no particular political axe to grind on that day.

According to the MDA statement—

“Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America gathered for a membership meeting today at Blue Mesa Grill restaurant. We were confronted soon after by gun advocates who disagree with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families. Gun advocates held an armed protest in the parking lot, and our mom members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. Sadly, these bullies feel they must use guns to intimidate moms and children and try to inhibit our constitutional right to free speech. But Moms Demand Action will not be deterred. The desperate actions of this vocal minority only fuels our determination to fight for gun reform in Texas and across the country. Change will come.”

The tense situation (tense, at least, for those on the inside of the eatery) did not conclude until four rather brave members of MDA came out of the restaurant and faced the army of 40 armed men, women and…yes…children.

For those of you who would suggest that the members of Open Carry Texas were simply engaging in their Constitutional right to gather and protest what was occurring inside the restaurant, you would be wrong.

While the group is certainly entitled to protest (although there are questions raised about them doing so on private property without invitation as was the case here), they are not, according to Texas law, entitled to do so by openly showing their weapons.

While Texas permits licensed gun owners to carryconcealed weapons, Texas does not permit the open carry of guns, except for long guns that are not being used in a menacing way (added). Indeed, it is the desire to change this law that the Open Carry Texas group is all about.

Accordingly, Open Carry’s chosen method to make its point and preferences known is not only to break the law but to severely frighten unarmed people in the process.

The owner of the Blue Mesa made the decision not to call the police when the armed protestors showed up in his parking lot, fearing that the situation might devolve into a dangerous riot—although there is reason to believe it might not have mattered if he had called the cops.

In an email received by MDA a few hours after the scare took place, Open Carry bragged—

“We had a great time today walking through San Antonio with our semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. The best part was that the reaction was very positive and supportive. People are “getting used” to seeing and being around guns and police have come to accept it and don’t even question us anymore. What we are doing is working and society is coming to view the sight of “military style rifles” in public as just another normal thing. Isn’t that a good thing?”

Does anyone really think that this is what the 2^nd Amendment was designed to accomplish?

Does anyone think the Founders would approve of a group of 40 armed citizens making their point by terrifying their unarmed neighbors practicing their own right to pursue their point of view?

While I understand that people are passionate about their 2^nd Amendment rights—and I certainly acknowledge and respect their right be so—how can any 2^nd Amendment advocate stand by quietly and not protest the actions of a bunch of bullies with semi-automatic weapons who would intimidate their own unarmed neighbors?

To defend such an action in unworthy of any true defender of the 2nd Amendment.

But defend it many will. Indeed, one commenter to this article wrote, “They deserve to be terrified. Thats what happens when you form a group to take away the freedoms of another group of people.” Doesn’t that just speak volumes?

Indeed, any gun rights advocate unwilling to call out this behavior can no longer legitimately suggest that their primary interest is the defense of the Constitution as the Constitution does not create a right to threaten and terrify fellow citizens who pose no immediate threat to one’s safety or the safety of one’s family. Rather, our Constitution creates the right to defend one’s self and one’s family from attacks.

Unless you are prepared to argue that a member of Moms Demand Action was preparing to take out one of the Open Carry protestors by hurling a ham sandwich at his head, any support for these tactics is a direct repudiation of 2nd Amendment rights and nothing more than support for a bully with a gun.

It also seems appropriate to point out Webster’s definition of terrorism— ”the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.” While I suppose some would argue that placing one in fear of being on the wrong end of a violent act is not violence until the act takes place, I wonder if anyone who has ever found themselves on the business end of a weapon would agree?

This leads to the question all gun rights advocates should now be asking—why am I writing this article when it should be the National Rifle Association speaking out loudly against Open Carry Texas?

While I understand that the NRA would support the political objectives of Open Carry, I don’t know how they can continue to claim that they are all about 2nd Amendment rights if they remain quiet in the face of those who would use the 2nd Amendment to support gun bullying.

So, your move NRA. Let’s hope you do the right thing.

Contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

UPDATE: A number of commenters have asked why, if those inside the restaurant were frightened by what was happening in the parking lot, one of them did not phone the police—a reasonable question.

I put the question to Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demanding Action, who explains that a number of people inside the restaurant did wish to phone the police. They were stopped from doing so by the adamant request of the restaurant owner who was extremely fearful of the situation turning into “a shootout” and asked the patrons to do nothing until the armed protestors left the premises on their own account.

Apparently, it was not just the members of MDA and other diners who were frightened as the owner of the establishment was also placed in great fear by the assembled gun men and women in his parking lot.

The guests at the restaurant, including the members of MDA, complied with the owner’s entreaties.

However, the women who were attending the MDA meeting will be filling a police complaint today.

UPDATE 2: As the comments flow in from those who see no effort to intimidate in the matter at hand-many basing their opinion on second photo which shows the armed protestors posing for a picture with an American flag while denying the intent of the photo posted on this article—I am reminded of just how strongly these same people felt about the Black Panther case where two Black Panthers were video taped acting in a menacing way in front of a voting booth.

As Adam Serwer wrote in the Washington Post, “First, some brief background. On Election Day 2008, two NBPP members, one of whom was carrying a baton, were videotaped outside a polling station in a mostly black neighborhood in Philadelphia. No voters complained, but video of the two taken by Republican poll watchers went viral in the conservative media. Two months later, Bush administration officials in the Justice Department filed a voter intimidation lawsuit under a section of the Voting Rights Act that was last used to stop a 1992 statewide voter suppression effort against blacks by then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).”

Now, when this happened the Tea Party folks went crazy-and rightfully so, in my opinion. When it was a couple of Black Panthers armed with a baton, they were, apparently, intimidating people. But when it is 40 armed people in a parking lot protesting a meeting inside, that is not intimidating. When nobody inside the restaurant in this story called the police (explanation for this in Update 1), this is proof that nobody was frightened. And yet, the fact that not one voter or any other person called the police in the Black Panther case, this was no roadblock to those who screamed bloody murder over the behavior of these Panthers.

I think the Panthers were very much out of order in that incident. I believe they intended to gravely frighten people and no doubt accomplished their goal. However, anyone attempting to say that there was no effort to intimidate or menace here when they were so deeply disturbed by the actions of the Panthers is simply a provable, flat out hypocrite.

UPDATE 3: In a conversation I just had with Chris Barton, CFO of Blue Mesa Grill, Mr. Barton clears up some issues and debunks some rumors that are building around the story.

First, Mr. Barton told me that the manager of the restaurant, concerned about what was happening, did call the police and was told that those in the parking lot were within their legal rights (interesting and more on this in a moment). The police eventually sent a cruiser over however, when it arrived, the gun protestors began walking down the street. This is interesting given that when they showed up, they were in vehicles and yet, when the police arrived, they were walking down the street away from the restaurant.

Also remember that it is only legal in Texas to carry a long gun in full view if one is not using the weapon in a menacing fashion. It’s pretty hard to be perceived as using a weapon in a menacing fashion when walking away from the scene. I suspect we will hear a very different story when the members of MDA file their police report today.

In the debunking narratives department the meme has been making it through the conservative media that the gun toters were at the restaurant before the members of the MDA arrived, calling into question how frightened they actually were if they continued to go inside the Blue Mesa Grill. Mr. Barton confirms that this was not the case and that the gun protestors arrived after the women had been there.

UPDATE 4: Because gun activists are seeking to misdirect attention from the real story here by raising questions about the photo I and others used to depict the events of Saturday, I have pulled the photo in order to force these folks to actually address the story-not the photograph. Let’s see what they can come up with now.

It’s really quite amazing. One would think that the most ardent gun rights activist and protector of 2nd Amendment rights would be capable of simply saying that the behavior we witnessed here was just not cool. Acknowledging this would, in no way, dent their 2nd Amendment credentials. And yet, so many cannot bring themselves to do this.

That is pretty pathetic to try and intimidate women that way.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Cover your head from the chit which is going to fly at you.

I agree, pretty pathetic when you have to threaten women with guns and you are a man.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Childish, immature behavior that gives good gun owners a bad name.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That was stupid, immature and counter productive for Open Carry Texas to do that. You already got a bunch of anti-gun women, who probably get hysterical about guns in the restaurant. So someone thinks it's a good idea to show up armed to the teeth.

I am very pro-gun. However that was like farting in an elevator full of strangers on a cold January morning after a night of binge drinking and chili dog eating.

It may be legal, but it's sure not going to win you any friends.

Cover your head from the chit which is going to fly at you.

I agree, pretty pathetic when you have to threaten women with guns and you are a man.

They were dead wrong to do it, but they did not threaten anyone. Scare them to death maybe

Edited November 12, 2013 by The conciliator

[Janelle2002 3,865]

That was stupid, immature and counter productive for Open Carry Texas to do that. You already got a bunch of anti-gun women, who probably get hysterical about guns in the restaurant. So someone thinks it's a good idea to show up armed to the teeth.

I am very pro-gun. However that was like farting in an elevator full of strangers on a cold January morning after a night of binge drinking and chili dog eating.

It may be legal, but it's sure not going to win you any friends.

The presence and guns were threatening enough. You can threaten someone by gesture or body language without opening your mouth.

They were dead wrong to do it, but they did not threaten anyone. Scare them to death maybe

[Darnell 8,478]

Arlington? I would have sat down with the Mothers against Senseful Guns myownself,

and talked with them till they passed out.

The gun owners should have done the same.

Why? Mothers are fun to talk to, and they always smile at me.

----

keywords stupid PAC clueless

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Texas does not permit the open carry of guns, except for long guns that are not being used in a menacing way (added).

no picture to see if the firearms had a magazine inserted and the bolt closed. difficult to say without pics as to whether this was menacing or not.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

no picture to see if the firearms had a magazine inserted and the bolt closed. difficult to say without pics as to whether this was menacing or not.

Here you go sir

Bolt closed or not, you know a bunch of hysterical soccer moms have no clue about that. They were legal to do it, but not very smart.

[Peikko 1,575]

How are 40 or so armed people deliberately targeting a restaurant not menacing? I fail entirely how they could not be unless we are going to pretend that guns are not guns.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

How are 40 or so armed people deliberately targeting a restaurant not menacing? I fail entirely how they could not be unless we are going to pretend that guns are not guns.

i suppose it would help to understand the legal definition of menacing.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

This is VJ,

Racist, women hating bigots are allowed. Defending yourself is in violation.

[Peikko 1,575]

i suppose it would help to understand the legal definition of menacing.

Help in what way? I suppose you are going to go along with the who cares what a bunch of hysterical women think are you? Why not add that they were probably hysterical because they were having their period too? That's a favorite on VJ I've noticed. Total disrespect for others, again, what a surprise?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Help in what way? I suppose you are going to go along with the who cares what a bunch of hysterical women think are you? Why not add that they were probably hysterical because they were having their period too? That's a favorite on VJ I've noticed. Total disrespect for others, again, what a surprise?

apparently a gentle reminder of the legal aspects of the term falls on deaf ears.

[Peikko 1,575]

apparently a gentle reminder of the legal aspects of the term falls on deaf ears.

I asked you why you thought the legal definition mattered. Apparently that's a question that's a little too hard for you. The fact is that 40 armed people deliberately intimidated people in a restaurant going about their lawful business and you want to quibble as to what the legal definition of menacing is? I do not care, the people in the restaurant did not care and most rational human beings do not care. Carrying guns around to reinforce your right to carry guns around is barmy, doing so deliberately to upset people who are not causing you any harm is indefensible.

[Darnell 8,478]

I'm not a fan of open carry in Texas.

I could be, if it were legal, pistol in a holster visible at one's hip.