Hi LL sorry this wasn't clear
the "due process" applies to "judging PEOPLE for wrongs or wrongful intent"
(not whether events happened or not)
as for what caused them to hide, what happened to the part of the story that
a false alarm or some other warning [false 911 call from customer?] caused them to go hide?
If the gun owners had zero criminal intent, I can see how no charges would be filed
(to prevent even more headache and media frenzy over the controversy and confusion).
But even if their actions "unintentionally" caused a breach of the peace, and scared employees, disrupting business operations at their workplace, that is still an imposition on those workers and that business, even if no crime occurred.
I'm glad they worked it out peaceably without further incident, and nobody got hurt.
If they saw the differences in intent and perception were mutual, perhaps it was equal.
Still I do not see how anyone can be blamed for how they react to guns when there was not an agreement in advance how to deal with this crowd and what to expect.
[Note: it says that after employees were assured by police that there was no threat, "some even took photos" with the protestors.
if they were "trying to be overreactive" or ugly to each other, would they have been on friendly terms afterwards? wasn't this an honest
mistake because of past gun confrontations that have happened before? weren't they just trying to be safe and call police instead?]
Great response, however, the person that made the bogus 911 call is responsible for the 'imposition'. not the legally carrying demonstrators.
Perhaps, but if that Jack in the Box had gun confrontations with customers in the past, I would not be so quick to blame how people reacted. I would call it even at mutual -- mutual misperception by others, and failure of the gun owners for not making their intent known in advance because they didn't know that location had such a history.
On that note, you can also blame the "people who abuse guns to MAKE it a problem of not being able to tell the difference."
Now THIS I WOULD blame on the criminals. I DO believe that people who abuse firearms to commit abuses or crimes HARM the rights of others to carry firearms for lawful intent.
So I DO believe there should be additional laws and requirements in place, to educate and train people and ensure there is an advanced signed agreement and commitment to exercise the right to bear arms for defense of the law only, and not to commit any breach, abuse or crime. I believe especially that abusing firearms to commit a PREMEDITATED crime such as rape or robbery should come with an agreement to forfeit citizenship if convicted of such a premeditated crime (where it is also agreed that "due process" involves full cooperation and disclosure with authorities so there is no doubt that such a crime was committed, ie raise the standards on due process to make sure there are no false convictions if citizenship is going to ride on this condition); so that people take responsibility for the right to bear arms.
I believe THAT is a better standard to enforce, than "trying to ban guns at public places."
We DO need to distinguish the people with criminal intent to abuse weapons; so why not screen these out in advance by having districts "opt in" to local ordinances where the residents AGREE on signed terms for upholding the laws if citizens are going to carry firearms freely.
The citizens clearly do not agree to the ban. So why not sit down and write out what terms the residents DO agree to sign onto, in order to be assured which citizens are law abiding.
The ordinance should be written and agreed upon by all residents in that community, so anyone with criminal intent will be screened out in the process and/or not allowed in that district.
That would do more to unite the community on the law and weed out criminal influences.
If it works in one community, it would likely catch on in others, where there is ZERO tolerance for criminal intent (instead of punishing law abiding gun owners because people can't tell the difference).
