Where in his statement does he say that? He's only carrying to protect himself wherever he goes, even against the opinions of theater managers. It is not within his purview to be engaged in protecting others, except perhaps those within his party for whom he is responsible.
And how come the theater manager knew he was carrying? If you have a CCDW in my state, the law is that it is to be concealed and not printing through your clothing that you are armed. I believe that is also still true in PA, for I have concurrently held a license there for many years.
This kid was demonstrating extremely poor judgment and prejudicial to the interests of other carriers, in view of the current furor.
“how come the theater manager knew he was carrying?”
OPEN carry.
Re-read the article. Open carry = legal. First sentence.
I don't consider 27 years old "a kid", and I don't agree with you that people should not open carry where it is legal. I admire those who open carry, because it helps everyone get used to it. But it takes courage, and willingness to be hassled at best, and maybe even stopped for hours by police and have your firearm confiscated.
Because another moviewatcher saw that it was tucked in his belt and reported it.
You need to remove your sig line. It doesn’t fit with your denigration of this mans efforts to be “be forearmed”...
If you have fallen for the fallacy of “looking like a weak, easy target by carrying concealed only” is better than looking like a capable adversary who is openly armed, then this could explain a few things about your attitude.
The law in your state may need to change.
The Heller and McDonald decisions make it quite plain that the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment from government infringements. This protection extends to infringements by state governments.
If our Founders intended the protection to extend to only the concealed carrying of firearms, they were certainly capable of saying so. In fact, most arms that were carried at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment were long arms for which concealed carry would be impractical. The "bearing" of arms in the Second Amendment most certainly applies to those carried openly. At the time of our nation's founding, the prejudice of the day was probably against the concealed carrying of arms.
As to the practical aspects of open carry, it's my opinion that the risks are very much over-stated. While it may be possible to forcibly take a firearm from a person, there are measures, such as retention holsters, which make such a thing a very dangerous undertaking. Police and security guards carry openly all the time. I am aware of no great concern about these people being forcibly disarmed.
There is absolutely no justification for stopping a person solely because they are openly carrying a firearm. A couple of generations of gun control, enabled by a silent Supreme Court, and treasonous Circuit Courts, have created a prejudice against the lawful carrying of arms. I am greatly pleased to see this being reversed.