Big Al’s Security Guard Testimony | Part 1 | Open Carry Trial PT #18 | OnTheMoveShow

Big Al’s Security Guard Testimony | Part 1 | Open Carry Trial PT #18 | OnTheMoveShow

Welcome to On The Move with Mack Worley. Please Subscribe! In this video, the witness starts out being questioned outside of the presence of the jury. The witness was the security guard for Big Al’s bowling alley, which by the way, has a bar and serves alcohol and could hardly be considered a “family fun center” anymore than a restaurant could; however, he gives his version of events. Mack’s lawyer tries to find out the events that led up to Big Al’s being put on “lockdown status” and in what circumstances the security company allows for lockdown measures. It is clear that the standard of “anytime there possibly could be a threat” is lower than that of reasonable suspicion and probable cause; thus, the lockdown at Big Al’s should not be used as evidence of any wrong doing on Mack’s part. This is witness number two that testifies that Mack had no threatening actions and that the only thing the witness was concerned about was the simple fact that Mack was armed, which is not illegal. This is also the second witness to say that they would feel more comfortable if it was an openly carried pistol, which, in the eyes of the law, there is no difference between a pistol and a rifle. Additionally, pistols can kill just as easily as a semi-automatic AR-15s and are involved in vastly more homicides every year than rifles according to FBI statistics. It is important to note that Mack did not enter Big Al’s, nor did he have any intention of entering it; he was simply walking across their parking lot to access the public sidewalk. Lastly, Mack did not even know what he was walking toward until he got close enough to clear the trees that were obstructing his vision.

NOTE: Please do not contact or harass this witness. The only reason her identity was revealed was for purposes of transparency and because it is public record, available through FOIA requests.

This trial essentially boiled down to a citizen walking around a city, peacefully asserting his right to keep and bear arms. As far as the jury was concerned, they never saw the police interaction and were never told that Mack even got arrested. Their job was to determine if walking around with an AR-15 in public, without touching it or being threatening to others, was a violation of RCW 9.41.270 (, “Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm—Unlawful carrying or handling”, which it clearly is not. Washington is an open carry state, Mack was not threatening anyone (the Prosecution admitted that in this video: and it is arguable that any alarm that was created was a direct result of the police’s weapons drawn arrival (

Mack’s First Trial Results:

Mack’s Unlawful Arrest:

Vancouver Police Officer Won’t Give His Name:

Eberlestock Warhammer Bug Out Bag Review:

Check us out at:

On The Move With Mack Worley’s stores:

Know Your Rights! Assert Your Rights! Get On The Move!


My story of getting unlawfully arrested for Open Carry of a firearm:

Part 1:
Part 2:

Want to donate to Mack’s Legal Fund?
Defense fund is at:


Shares 0


  1. Just want to say I have been watching this from the very first ‘arrest
    section’ of your nightmare treatment that day. I find this enthralling and
    educational. I think you have done brilliant job of putting the whole story

    So many videos lack the back story or end result. This is what my videos
    try and do – present a full overview.

    Well done and I hope I get to see a victory video vindicating you by the
    end Mack.

  2. a really good way to re-enforce our constitutional right nation-wide would
    be, to file for police officers bonds for 1: violating your civil rights 2:
    your constitutional right, 3: violating there code of conduct, 4: there
    oath, 5: rules of engagement… you had every officers bond, as well as a
    punative damages lawsuit and an additional lawsuit for civil rights
    violation, constitutional rights violation, and being threatened at gun
    point. you had a 10 min. spree where police mad available to you upwards of
    a million dollars… ou and anyone in these situations and incidents need
    to start taking money from commerce and the justice system for these foul
    opressing unconstitutional actions… nothing makes govt. pay attention and
    back the fuck off like citizens taking money!!!! please for the good of all
    of us take bonds file lawsuits next time. spread the word and my message
    before its too late!!!!!

  3. I’m still confused by how someone gets found guilty of doing something that
    is completely legal. Merica!

  4. I still want to beat the everloving shit out of those cops in the first
    video. what town is this at? 11b1p.

  5. Wow that security guard Lawyer " did you see him touch the gun?" Security
    guard "As in?" Lawyer "put his hands on the gun"…..

  6. i mdean honestly heres in sequence singular lawsuite you could have filed
    in the original occurance when the police "detained" yu. a lawsuit on every
    officer however many on scene per officer… 1 bond per, civil rights
    violation per, constitutional rights violations for 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th…
    thats 4 on every officer, 2 for drawing on you without cause seizing your
    property unlawfully too, punative damages caused by stress possibly
    trauma…. i mean damn man… you really let it slide! lets say for the
    sake of a short point theres 3 on scene… thats 26 lawsuites you had
    proven.. i believe they said 6 on site??? real money!!!

  7. Oh dear god, that security guard was clearly an inept douchebag who never
    should be allowed to carry a gun because he knows NOTHING about them. On
    Linkedin we security profesionals have had many discussions about how to
    make sure that security guards get the best training possible and how many
    companies do not keep to the law regarding required federal and state
    firearms training laws.
    Also i might have to point out that the arrest should have been part of the
    trial, very bad idea to not keep that in. In fact with especially the tone
    the cops were setting (especially the latina with the shotgun) it was clear
    they were out to harras you and at the very least abuse you and arrest you,
    possibly even kill you seeing as the latina appeared to want to shoot and
    kill you very much.
    If this Dutch RDA vet can help you by testifying about guns, their proper
    use, proper security guard training, proper responses for law enforcement
    officers etc, let me know.

  8. That is so ridiculous that the judge would allow so much time and resources
    to be unnecessarily wasted over an issue that was clearly and entirely
    filmed in first-person view. The police were clearly in the wrong and it
    would only take a jackass of a judge to not see that.

Comments are closed.