LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks^Spoken from a Utah LEO ;)
When do I get to tag along to see what you do? :)
This is a discussion on Stopped by cops for Open carry on Campus-Video. What do you think? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; ^Spoken from a Utah LEO ;) When do I get to tag along to see what you do? :)...
Array
^Spoken from a Utah LEO ;)
When do I get to tag along to see what you do? :)
Array
i need to go to school in Utah :P
S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
proud www.georgiacarry.org member
Second Amendment Foundation Life member
Array
The officer says he wants to search your car. Why bust the officer's eggs? Let him search your car. Just let it go and you can refuse to let the officer search your car another day. The fourth amendment isn't that important.Originally Posted by CLASS3NH
Array
I could say everything he said, recorded and no one could tell me from him. I swear I was listening to myself. He has MY voice. Weird.
www.ubgholsters.com short wait times. Use 'defensivecarry' as a coupon code for a discount to your order.
Array
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart. I have zero respect for this kid.
I get so sick and tired of one step forward, two steps back because of these people who think it's their responsibility to educate and force their views upon others... it does nothing to further "the cause."
The LEO was doing this self-proclaimed hero a favor by telling him it's not a good idea. He could have just latched him for disorderly conduct, put him through the system and made him have a bad day or three. Maybe it wouldn't have stuck, but it would have ran up some legal expenses and caused the cocky kid some trouble.
If the school doesn't want OC, why force it? If it's truly for self-defense... conceal it and call it a day.
My eyes, they roll.
Array
Apparently the school can't legally prohibit OC.Originally posted by LLT If the school doesn't want OC, why force it? If it's truly for self-defense... conceal it and call it a day.
I'm really not sure how I would have responded. The cop wasn't a jerk to the kid. The kid wouldn't have had any of his rights infringed ( The Constitution says bear arms not BARE arms). I very likely would have said ok and covered it up.
Now at the point where the police chief replied to his email I would have gone OC.org on him (which is what I suspect is about to happen)
Array
I don't think you get the point, mister. OC'ing on Utah college campuses is just as legal as marrying outside your race. Am I going to not walk down the street with my wife because an ignorant LEO says "it's legal but you shouldn't be doing it"?
Array
You're saying that the justification for claiming someone is disorderly is that two or more others claim it's true? That guilt is established by the fear of a person, and NOT by the actions of that person? That guilt is cemented the moment a second person stands up and foully spews the same illegitimate claim against a person?
I'm assuming this varies a bit with state statute, but would you mind presenting the specific statutes in question for the state of your residence, supporting this? (Or, those of Utah, since that's what this thread is about.)
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
No is the answer to all your questions in your first paragraph.
And sure;
2917.11 section B1.
"Just blame Sixto"
2*
M&P Doc- Just ask.
Array
If it is a public secondary school it follows STATE LAW not there own law.
Great analogy!
Or to carry the point a bit further, just because someone doesn't want to do "it" (what ever "it" is), doesn't make it wrong or dumb.
Μολὼν λαβέ
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
Array
No is the answer to all your questions in your first paragraph.
And sure;
2917.11 section B1.
I still don't see how the actions of the person were disorderly, nor how such a claim of "disorderly conduct" could apply merely based on claims unsupported by such action.
Let's assume for a moment the person carried a firearm legally at a legal venue much like in the Utah scenario described, except that the situation occurred in Ohio and Ohio's RC 2917.11 statutes applied.
Ohio RC 2917.11 section B1 states:
2917.11 Disorderly conduct.
(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:
(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;
(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.
...
Unless a person is intoxicated, this wouldn't have applied (were the OP's scenario occurring in Ohio).
2917.11(A)(5) seems a bit closer, though the actions still don't seem to qualify:
2917.11 Disorderly conduct.
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.
...
However, even in 2917.11(A), which describes "physically offensive" conditions created by someone, it shouldn't apply if that person is not creating a phyisical offense. The sight of something is easily ignored by not staring at it, particularly something simply and discreetly carried. Whereas, something like a horrible stench or loud noise cannot be easily escaped. Beyond which, carrying a firearm for defensive purposes certainly is a "lawful and reasonable purpose."
This seems a clear "anti-gun" bias, if disorderliness were to be upheld simply because of claims.
SIXTO, assuming the situation occurred in Ohio, are you saying that Ohio RS 2917.11(B) could still be applied to the OP's original (Utah) situation simply because of the claims, irrespective of the fact that no such qualifying action had been made by the person carrying the firearm? It seems to me that unwarranted fearfulness, or bias on the part of the LEO, isn't sufficient, that some actual offensive and otherwise illegal action on the part of a person is required that goes well and truly beyond merely carrying a firearm. The mere carrying of firearms is, after all, legal in that situation.
Using the analogy of a married couple described above, "Am I going to not walk down the street with my wife because an ignorant LEO says 'it's legal but you shouldn't be doing it'?"
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that it should be, I'm simply saying that it could be.
The whole two or more thing was a side bar about the nuances of laws on the books. I used that as an example of being able to make a solid case out of nothing if one was so inclined.
"Just blame Sixto"
2*
M&P Doc- Just ask.
Ohio's "persons of ordinary sensibilities" and our "reasonable person" standard looks good from the mountains of SWVA.
However, when applied in an anti-RKBA State it could mean big trouble -- especially in light of all the anti-feel-safe comments showing up in the thread http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...le-w-guns.html.
The future of the RKBA could be more in the hands of the press and movie industry than I was willing to admit.
The fear-mongers need not worry about changing the law. They can gain power, influence and funding by spreading fear in the general population.
The RKBA will die, if they can spread enough fear and distrust to the bulk of the population and thereby redefine the views of "persons of ordinary sensibilities" and the expectations of the common "reasonable person" -- regardless what the Law or Constitution says.
It worked in GB, Australia, etc.
Last edited by DaveH; March 10th, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason: cleaned up syntax
Μολὼν λαβέ
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
Array
Its a moot point. You can NOT carry a gun on a University campus in Ohio. Concealed or not it is against Ohio law.
There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
