“At approximately 3 p.m. Tuesday, police responded to a call regarding a customer dispute at the Enmark on the corner of Park Avenue and North Lee Street,” valdostadailytimes.com reports. “A [Georgia] man carrying a holstered firearm entered the store to make a purchase. Another customer, also with a holstered firearm, approached him and demanded to see his identification and firearms license, according to the Valdosta Police Department report. The customer making demands for ID pulled his firearm from its holster but never pointed it at the other customer, who said he was not obligated to show any permits or identification.” And that was that. Only it wasn’t . . .
He demanded the man’s ID again. Undeterred by the drawn gun, the man paid for his items, left the store and called for police.
Authorities arrested Ronald Williams, 62, on a charge of disorderly conduct, related to the pulling of a weapon inside of the store, according to the VPD. Police confiscated Williams’ weapon and took him to the Lowndes County Jail.
The police chief said no one can demand a person to show their gun permit. Under the new law, he as police chief and his officers cannot demand to see a firearms permit, Childress said.
“This is an example of my concern with the new gun law that people will take the law into their own hands which we will not tolerate,” Childress said.
Right. This is bound to happen all the time. Still, it shouldn’t have happened even once, so the man who fancied himself an enforcer gets TTAG’s IGOTD hardware. And a heads up: winners are under no obligation to show their award to nosy neighbors.
Looks like someone was ovemedicated a bit today…..
Was that him pictured? The article said Williams was 62 years old. If that was him in the picture, why is he dressed like a teenager? There sure have been a lot of bad gun incidents involving sexagenarians. Another random thought, I think the guy that was questioned and drawn on deserves an award as well. Maybe a life membership to the NRA if he isn’t one already. What a cool customer…literally. This also should be a great example to the grabbers that “guns everywhere” does not lead to “wild West shootouts”.
Sounds like dementia.
Well that’s one thing we still don’t have here.
One of the six left.
I for one have no clue why??
We did before the shall issue started,
My understanding is you traded OC to get shall-issue passed.
Why in the world would this guy do this? I sense an -ism.
Maybe he’s just a mor0n.
Understatement of the week.
Likely an old guy who thinks he’s an only one due to being issued a permit.
Moron-ism. (not to be confused with mormonism.. which is a similar term but not exactly the same).
You are a bigot and beneath contempt.
The remark resembling Mormon and moron is not far from the truth. I’ll explain.
I know a man who grew up in a Mormon group that practiced polygamy, (which I wont say is horrible in itself, just abnormal), But they also taught that if you didn’t obtain multiple wives you were going to hell. His church practiced Arranged Marriages. All of the leaders took the young women one after another amassing up to TEN wives, while leaving him without one, even till nearly 30 years old. Because of the brainwashing he grew up under he was really messed up in the head, he was basically condemned to hell by his church simply because the cult leaders refused to arrange him a wife, instead taking them all for themselves. That is messed up. That is Moronic.
Actually throughout the course of history, polygyny (the one man multiple wives form of polygamy) was the norm for men who could afford it.
The relatively new concept of making bigamy illegal or frowning upon it is abnormal from that perspective, so your comment comes across as a bit ignorant.
“for men who could afford it”
I think you’ve identified why polygamy might be considered abnormal. How many men, percentage-wise, have been able to afford more than one wife? It may be an economic question; not a moral one.
Not sure what that has to do with this thing in Georgia… ; )
@Skyler – Casting the first stone, eh? Hypocrite.
@Justin
A “Mormon group that practiced polygamy” is not actually Mormon. Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have not practiced polygamy for over 120 years. There are groups that practice polygamy, but even if they call themselves Mormon, they are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are thus not Mormons.
@Sock Monkey
You have a good point… Actually, I read a really interesting article from a woman’s perspective this year as to why polygamy is good for women.
Besides the old argument about child rearing being easier etc., the author actually brought up a good point that since so few men would be able to afford multiple wives, and the ones would could would likely be the top few % of eligible males, and the top x% of eligible males would actually marry at least 2 or 3 women, all of whom could be considered the top tier of eligible women, this actually makes it a buyer’s market for women.
Basically, there would be a disproportionate number of eligible men to eligible women so women would have a lot more power in making a decision to find a mate.
Interesting stuff.
Darwinism.
What a maroon. What a gullibull. What a nincowpoop.
Ah, good ol’ Bugs Bunny. Haven’t heard that one in a long, long time.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That guy…. He is ALWAYS at that store. When he loiters outside, he will sometimes yell at people who look “too young to pump gas”. When he loiters inside, he tries to card people for beer and cigarettes.
He doesn’t work there.
This is not his first trip to County.
He’s nuts. He will follow people around the store and try to bully them into buying his favorite drinks or snacks. Not for him, but to make them appreciate Nacho Cheese Bugles like he does.
Wow…
So what I’m hearing is that it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy? 😀
Charming.
Not helping the OC movement Grandpa!
“’This is an example of my concern with the new gun law that people will take the law into their own hands which we will not tolerate,’ Childress said.”
What’s so special about this law, as opposed to the umpteen thousand federal, state and local laws that apply to that same city, which the good Chief does not oppose, that would engender a greater risk of people taking the law into their own hands? I’m seeing craziness out of a basically crazy guy, purportedly with a history of similar illegal acts, which the local legal system has superficially and indecisively, at best, addressed. What does that have to do with the new law, or any law?
Answer: not a damn thing. This is just another entitled, elitist, local storm trooper trumping up a case against firearms freedom. He views us all as ignorant, incompetent peasants who should sit down, shut up, and give up our self-defense firearms to the well-paid, overfed, uber-equipped, so-called professionals in “law enforcement.” Had Chief Do-Nothing done his job in the first place, this lunatic would never have been armed and on the streets in the first place to go around harassing people. Clearly he’s not capable of life without a custodian. But noooo…….the Chief won’t cop to his own complicity, so he expediently blames the new law.
I’ll ask again: are these the principled and brave men and women in uniform whom we’re supposed to believe will support and defend us against a tyrannical government and not turn on us when the cold winds blow?
Yeah I found it slightly annoying when Childress interjected his opinion of the law he is tasked with upholding. If he doesn’t like it and is principled, he needs to quite.
Doesn’t sound like the type of guy I want carrying a gun.
At a job I was at in the past we once had some crazy guy come in. Said that he had “voices” that were telling him things. Not the type of guy you would want carrying a gun either.
Such a person (that “hears voices”) should not be free on the streets to use a car, hammer, club, knife, firearm, or arson to maim and kill countless numbers of people. Rather, such a person should be in a mental hospital.
Everyone else should have a firearm if they want one.
Of course, if most people were armed in public, it wouldn’t matter if such a person (who “hears voices”) started a rampage because they wouldn’t accomplish much.
Ever notice how a crazy guy claims he’s hearing voices, but it’s usually only ever the same voice? Or perhaps multiple voices, but saying the same old basic crazy things? It’s always go kill this person, go set that on fire, drive through this crowd of people, go eat bath salts and turn yourself into a self-mutilating freakazoid and spark the Zombie Apocalypse. You know, all the classics.
It’s never “Pssst…….hey, crazy man. Uh huh, it’s me again, the crazy voice in your head. Yeah, um, what I need for you to do, is go around downtown putting extra coins in people’s expired meters. They just got caught short on change and long on time today, that’s all, but they’re good people and don’t deserve a ticket or a towing. Could you do that for me? Thanks, you’re a peach. Peace, out.”
Never happens……..
>>The police chief said no one can demand a person to show their gun permit. Under the new law, he as police chief and his officers cannot demand to see a firearms permit, Childress said.
>>“This is an example of my concern with the new gun law that people will take the law into their own hands which we will not tolerate,” Childress said.
Huh this had nothing to do with the new law, Ronald wouldn’t had have the right to ask to see the person’s permit under the old law either.
Yes. It’s hard for the simpletons to grasp this concept.
Something tells me (yea I know this is obvious to most but should be said), that the guy who was arrested wasn’t working with all cylinders in his head. I would be interested to know if the guy got his gun back
ok, this igotd is weak sauce compared to the d-bag who left his 11 year old at a public pool with a gun so he could get a tat.
That one is pretty hard to top.
Every idiot can’t be a perfect idiot like yesterday’s. But today’s does deserve honorable mention.
The idiot will lose the right to own a gun now.
Judging by the comment above by Sean N, he probably should have lost them a long time ago. I doubt this is his first visit to the police station.
Yup, the article says he was a regular at County. Couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
Could very well, and legaly, lost his life. He illegaly drew on a gun carrier. Would you not see that as a threat? Kind of plays down the Chipotle ninjas aye P.T.McCain?
This guy should not be allowed to own a firearm. Simple enough.
A long time ago I had an incident where I was leaving a gun shop with a newly purchased No4 Lee-Enfield in a box wrapped in plain brown paper. A person outside the store demanded I hand over the firearm.
I asked if they were police. They were not.
I asked if they had a firearms license. They didn’t.
The commotion attracted the attention of uniformed police officers who told the person to move along or they would be arrested for theft and unauthorized possession of a firearm.
The person kept protesting that what I was doing wasn’t legal. By now the store employee who had sold the rifle had appeared and verified the legal sale (the license had to be sighted by the store to authorize the sale, back in the pre permit-to-acquire good old days). One of officers asked if I had a license and I replied yes. He said that was good enough and they had no reason to detain me.
But the troublemaker kept insisting he was in the right and what I was doing wasn’t legal. The officers warned him with a possible “public nuisance” charge and further charges of attempted unauthorized possession of a firearm.
By this stage I was walking off to a train station to go home. It’s good when an anti-gun zealot is put in their place.
You neglected to purchase a bayonet with that classic girl??
My basic reaction to reading this story is WTF … Just because you happen to have a government gun carry permission slip doesn’t give you the power to interrogate/threaten others to attempt to find out if they do.
Kudos to the other guy for not escalating the situation.
Like I was sayin……open carriers are douche bags and invite problems.
That’s an idiotic statement. Apparently the 62 year old man regularly harassed people. It doesn’t matter if the person he harassed was open carrying or not, the point is that someone with some obvious mental problems harassed another human being for no reason.
Open carriers seem just like flamboyant gays that go out of their way to act absolutely gay as they can, just to draw attention to themselves. I’m gay!!!!!! Look at me, I’m gay!!!!!!! They draw needless negative attention to themselves with their actions, although not illegal now is it! Naturally there are places they can go to do their…..thing, just like open carrying have more acceptable places to practice open carrying.
Cops get calls all the time for lots of difference behaviors which are not unlawful, but ill advisable.
I have an Arsenal SAM7R. If I went for walk with it here in Spokane, how long do you think it would be before the cops crawled up my ass? Not very god damn long. It’s perfectly legal, but around here, you don’t do that. That is my point. Common sense. OCing lacks common sense. It’s show off, look at me, I’m a little boy with a gun and a Red Corvette.
If you don’t like that kind of behavior, don’t do it. Complaining when someone else does just makes you look like a control freak. Get over yourself.
Sorry homeboy, but here in the South, and Georgia in particular, OCing a pistol is not uncommon and hardly noticed. So, you take care of your neck of the woods, and we’ll take care of ours.
Cops open carry. Does that make them douche bags, too? No? Why not? Ahhh…….because there’s some specific rationale you hold that justifies it. Got it. So we’re agreed: it’s not the open carrying, per se, that qualifies someone as a douche bag, it’s something else. What is that something else? And, how can you apply it so broadly as to know that it applies to all open carriers? You the fallacy of your argument? Open carriers only have open carry in common, but you aren’t actually against all open carrying. Sooo…… What exactly is your problem, and I emphasize that it is YOUR problem, supposedly with open carriers (even though we’ve already established that it’s not the actual act you oppose)? Here comes the silence or laughable rebuttal…….
Don’t be stupid by offering me an idiotic invitation to back up my claim that OCers are douche bags compared to cops who open carry. That is an ignorant analogy and you’re an idiot for putting that out there. Cops open carry for an entirely different purpose than OCers.
I have not seen one single concealed carrier cause a problem at Star Bucks or anywhere else, have you?
In as much as my comment may indeed piss in your Corn Flakes, well, too bad about that, but my general opinion of people who are not uniformed security or law enforcement are douche bags. And I don’t mean people out hunting or engaged in sport shooting who are carrying a sidearm. I am specifically targeting the individual who in the course of his daily affairs, going to the store, the bank, picking up their car from Firestone etc and they are open carrying, they are douche bags. Deal with it. I feel they are hurting our cause and it’s your comment which is laughable.
I disagree. It is your attitude that is laughable. Your reasoning is also what’s wrong with the pro-self defense community. Instead of civil discourse, you mock, insult, and whine your way to a moot point. Your attitude reeks of statism. Allow me to break it down for you.
Statist: I don’t like that, you can’t do it.
Libertarian: I don’t like that, I won’t do it.
Expressing your opinion is one thing, but your immature attacks serve no purpose other than to placate your ego.
“Star Bucks” LOL
Oh my god [facepalm], that IDIOT!
You never draw your weapon unless you are committed to using it on someone! That’s how it was in Feudal Japan with swords, and that’s how it is still TODAY! Someone needs to teach these idiots this concept!!!
Yeah, time to change out the hamster in this plonker’s noggin.
Teachable moment, this story. Let this be a lesson to all you suburban commandos, and you know who you are (or must I go back through comments to recent OC articles and ID you individually?), that you need to mind your own business when other people are minding theirs and behaving lawfully.
For all of you self-styled public safety paladins who would go around drawing down on people who open carry rifles, you need to check yourselves and take your own meds. As you see with the comments to this article, YOU’RE the risk to public safety. Your approach elicits ridicule from fellow firearms owners and prompt arrest by peace officers and could well create a deadly situation where none existed previously.
Some of you people flit about hyperventilating and overreacting to nothing more than obviously peaceful protests. Hell, even in today’s article with the picture of the armed restaurant owner and her staff, some of you panicked over the “threatening” pose those lovely ladies struck. Get a grip, get a life, get some help, and leave law abiding people alone!
It’s a reminder that you a owning a gun only comes with the right to protect your self, it does not give you the right to act as police or vigilante.
“some of you panicked over the “threatening” pose those lovely ladies struck. Get a grip, get a life, get some help, and leave law abiding people alone!”
They may not have been threatening, but it’s very old custom that dictates, when in public, the act of grabbing a weapon by it’s handle is making a threat, and drawing it from it’s sheath means that you are committed to using it on someone.
Try explaining that to a LEO using their sidearm as an armrest…
Okay, fair enough.
But come on. First, it was a picture. Second, it was four smiling ladies. Third, the guns were OBVIOUSLY holstered and were remaining so. It was NOT an aggressive move or pose by any possible stretch of the imagination.
We are either automatons or thinking human beings. Automatons like things like “bright line rules” and “zero tolerance” precisely because it remains the responsibility of higher order thought.
Thinking beings, on the other hand, can collect data AND process it. The rule is not “hand on gun” but “hand on gun in threatening manner.” The picture of those ladies did not meet that part of the standard, at least in my book.
Lets remember this was a mentally ill person. Its not about the gun. Its about the mental illness-
like Rodgers, Lanza, Holmes, etc.
We have to keep making this obvious (to us) point over and over, for the benefit of the public,
or we constantly are on the defensive against the gun-grabbers who make it about the gun.
And by the way, OCT- when you look at it that way, you aren’t helping out- you look crazy too, carrying an AR in Chipotles, Target, the mall. Give it a rest, guys. You are just playing into Everytowns game-
how do you think their Alexa rankings got so high, vs MDA- stop and think about it- what have they exploited for PR? They didnt have an answer on Rodgers, obviously, and went dark for two weeks.
Sounds like a liberal pawn, used to make new law fail miserably on 1st day. Stinks. Very unreasonable. I know people are very crazy in this sick world, but this just sounds made up.
There is a conspiracy theory for every story.
Great example of one of the major problems with GA’s permitting process… NO EDUCATION REQUIRED AS PART OF THE PROCESS. Law should be changed to require legals – when, where, why and how you can/cannot carry, what you can/cannot do!. Exactly why many states refuse reciprocity with GA.
Your assumption that this erratic gentleman would have behaved differently if he had had some “education” is inherently flawed. Georgia has reciprocity with most of the non-slave states.
@Rambeast: That is different from gripping a weapon and is part of weapon retention training. In fact it is done to keep the weapon holstered ( by keeping another person from grabbing it) especially in the instance of a forearm or wrist resting over the firearm. If you’re talking about hand in grip, holster unsnapped, well that is a bit different but has its place on the use of force continuum. But I fear that conflating a LEO’s firearm handling and this guy’s is missing the point and in the LEO’s case is not at odds with the premise you were replying to as they are willing to use their sidearm if the situation dictates.
Summary: He saw a white guy with a gun and made up his mind to pull his gun.
Ahhh, good ole “Valdookie”. I lived there for about 2 years, it wasnt my favorite place because of idiots like him. Lots of good people but lots of “him” too.
Am I the only one who looked at this photo and thought the fitness requirements for Georgia’s police are too lax?
Everyone keeps saying he’s crazy.
Isn’t mental health the control that gun rights supporters, support? “Don’t take our guns, keep them out of the hands of crazies!”
Well?
Comments are closed.