"Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime"

This is a discussion on "Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I saw this on the news, today. I couldn't disagree with this guy's stance on firearms any more than I do. In fact, I think ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: "Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime"

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,131

    "Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime"

    I saw this on the news, today. I couldn't disagree with this guy's stance on firearms any more than I do. In fact, I think his opinions about guns are downright, stupid. However, when it comes to the law in the books, I can't help but agree. ...I hate agreeing with people like this. Maybe he is a closet gun nut or something.

    Legally carrying a weapon is a crime

    Legally carrying a weapon is a crime

    wait, does that count as Arson?

    Look, I dislike guns. I dislike them a lot. I don’t believe that people kill people, rather that guns – the objects from which projectiles are discharged at a high rate of velocity, thereby permitting them to enter the bodies of individuals, causing fatal damage to bodily organs – kill people. I’d rather there weren’t any, or at the very least, we had stringent gun control laws.

    But do you know what I dislike more? Stupid laws and even stupider interpretation of laws that criminalize perfectly legal conduct. Somehow, despite my strict personal opposition to guns, it is still legal to carry a licensed firearm in Connecticut. In public. Openly.

    Yet, for some reason, the state’s “top criminal justice official” – a made up title if I ever heard one – wouldn’t recommend it. Why, you might logically ask, is it not a good idea? For the same reason that photographers across the country are being arrested for videotaping police encounters with civilians: because no one knows the law (see also this post by Balko on an issue similar to the one in the instant post).

    I’m not making this **** up.

    Mike Lawlor, already featured in one post today for his sage legal prognostications, offers up another:

    “In almost every situation you can imagine this happening in, it qualifies as breach of peace,” he said. “If you walk into a restaurant with a gun it’s almost by definition a breach of peace.”

    That results in an arrest and sets in motion a chain of events that usually results in the revocation of an issued pistol permit, he said. And that’s the way it should be, Lawlor said. Anyone who walks into a McDonalds plainly carrying a firearm either intends to alarm people or is irresponsible, he said.


    “Almost by definition”? Oh, really? Challenge Accepted! Here‘s the relevant Breach of Peace statute:

    (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person’s property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, “public place” means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

    Openly carrying a licensed weapon into a public place doesn’t fit subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6). You know what that means? It’s not, by definition, a breach of peace. But maybe he was tired from all that prognostication and encountered a “slip of the tongue”. Maybe what he meant was “Creating a Public Disturbance”. Contrived Challenge Accepted! Here‘s the statute:

    (a) A person is guilty of creating a public disturbance when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he (1) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) annoys or interferes with another person by offensive conduct; or (3) makes unreasonable noise.

    I’m no legal scholar, but I see three strikes there. Yerrrrout! (I don’t…just…don’t ask.)

    What Lawlor is essentially saying is that one shouldn’t legally carry a legal, licensed firearm in public, which one legally can do, because cops are stupid and don’t know that law and you’ll get falsely arrested for perfectly legal activity. So he’s doing you a public service, really. It’s like telling people not to walk around with large, brown plastic glasses and a 70s pornstar mustache because people may mistake you for a child molester and then you’ll get arrested and whatnot.

    But, you might protest, it’s only Lawlor, a former legislator and now a bureaucrat. That’s not evidence of anyth-:

    When asked in a phone interview last week if people are allowed to openly carry firearms with a permit, state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said, “Good question.”

    “Does it frighten people? Yes,” he said. “There is no standard quick answer to this question.”

    -Oh. Notice how he quickly answers the question “yes” and then says there’s no standard quick answer. This is dangerous because it’s indicative of a “winging it” style of policing. “Arrest first; find crime later” seems to be the motto. And we all know what happens once you get trapped in the quagmire that is the criminal justice system.

    The simple solution, of course, is to make it illegal to openly carry a weapon in public:

    Lawlor, a former lawmaker, said that personally he was no fan of guns but said he wasn’t inclined to have a discussion in the legislature over changing the law. It would be a difficult sell for gun rights activists, who he conceded raise some valid points. If taking out a gun is illegal under any circumstances, why would people carry them, he asked.

    He said he prefers the way the law is written now, where it is on the gun owner to behave responsibly.

    “You want to have a gun? Fine, but you have to accept the responsibility that goes with it.”

    Funny that he exhorts gun owners to behave responsibly, but doesn’t care about the illegality of the arrests that ensue from that responsible, legal, behavior.
    Hopyard likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Mr7point62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    150
    Another great Idiot trained by our Liberal Media, School Systems, and Liberal Government..

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array mprp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,886
    That's why the judicial system gets paid the big bucks to interpret the law. And interpretation isn't always the same.
    Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME

    Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.

  5. #4
    Member Array ChrisMia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Koontzy View Post
    Another great Idiot trained by our Liberal Media, School Systems, and Liberal Government..
    Really? That's your response? (A) That's an incredibly ignorant blanket statement to make. (B) I know I'm freshly registered, but I must say that it's disappointing to see so many threads on topics that could be really interesting to discuss intelligently devolve into political bashing. I totally understand that one side of the political aisle has historically been more firearm/2A friendly, but really, lets not let it get in the way of quality discussion. OP took the time to post a story that has some really meaty topics that are important to us as gun owners - lets not ignore them in favor of taking an easy political jab.

  6. #5
    Member Array Mr7point62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisMia View Post
    Really? That's your response? (A) That's an incredibly ignorant blanket statement to make. (B) I know I'm freshly registered, but I must say that it's disappointing to see so many threads on topics that could be really interesting to discuss intelligently devolve into political bashing. I totally understand that one side of the political aisle has historically been more firearm/2A friendly, but really, lets not let it get in the way of quality discussion. OP took the time to post a story that has some really meaty topics that are important to us as gun owners - lets not ignore them in favor of taking an easy political jab.
    Sorry but it wasnt a Political Jab.....thats just the way our country is turning..No offense...But I am not gonna go into detail explainging something simple to understand..

    Our schools are becoming Liberal, our Media is Liberal,and many in the government are liberal. When you have these things teaching kids as they grow up that guns are dangerous and should only be used by Police, thats what you end up with. Children here in the Public schools are taught to tell a cop if they see anyone that has one. My neighbors own kid called the police on him,because he was outside shooting a rifle ( getting ready for deer season), of course the cops didnt do anything, except write him a ticket for shooting inside city limits(which in reality our town is 40 people lol)..

    When I was in High School I could keep guns in my truck, I used to leave school at 3pm and be in my deer stand at 3:45. Heck we even had a Archery Class,and a school shooting team..Bet ya wont find those anymore in schools today.....As for the Interpretation of the Law? My interpretation is the same as theirs should be... I have the right to bear arms, regardless of what any Liberal Bonehead says....
    Magnum, atctimmy and WHEC724 like this.

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Here is my idiot response (since im too stupid to carry in public and must be a menace to society):

    If Americans actually read and understood the Constitution of the United States, which should be a legal requirement, then there would be no fear over seeing a legally open carried firearm in public. However liberal and antigun mantra over the years have brainwashed our sheepish citizens into thinking that the gun is evil.

    Okay last time I checked, an inanimate object does not have a brain. An object that has no brain is incapable of making a decision, moving on it's own, feeling emotion, and pulling it's own damn trigger. I think firearms might be brainless.

    So I would have to state that in all my 30 years of existence on planet earth the human being is more brainless than the gun for writing laws that require other brainless sheep to interpret those same laws. End result guns lose, people lose, idiot Americans who know nothing of the Constitution yet proclaim they do win.

    Oh my gosh prove me wrong and you better bring evidence or else you might even be more brainless than people with even more brainless guns.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Been their.
    Done that.
    Litigated it as defense counsel.

    Unless you want to pay lots of cash, don't mind being a defendant in a court facing criminal charges of threatening 2nd, breach of peace, creating a public disturbance and going through the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners appeal procedures...

    Keep it covered and be discrete.

    CT is not a gun friendly state.

    It's not what we wish it would be, but it is what it is, and anyone who wants to buck the trend can deal with the fall out.

    Do I agree with it? No.

    But it's the way it is right now.

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Been their.
    Done that.
    Litigated it as defense counsel.

    Unless you want to pay lots of cash, don't mind being a defendant in a court facing criminal charges of threatening 2nd, breach of peace, creating a public disturbance and going through the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners appeal procedures...

    Keep it covered and be discrete.

    CT is not a gun friendly state.

    It's not what we wish it would be, but it is what it is, and anyone who wants to buck the trend can deal with the fall out.

    Do I agree with it? No.

    But it's the way it is right now.
    Agree with you but I think the OP had a slightly different point. It was basically things are a certain way in CT despite the law, not because of the law. That's a fairly horrendous thing when one thinks about it. The ambiguous comment by Lt. Vance is basically an assertion that we'll make up our own rules as we go.

    I certainly understand that your advice is entirely reasonable and practical and sensible. OTOH, a legislative fix is in order. Perhaps that fix would be as simple as clearly disallowing open carry. That would work. It wouldn't satisfy some folks who see OC as an absolute right, but at least the law would have some clarity and be real law and not whim.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,410
    Governments' degeneration into lawlessness throughout our history has been a constantly recurring theme in the study of governance. In the old days government just did what it pleased. In this modern age they must at least have the appearance of obedience to rule-of-law. So they use obfuscation instead. The ruling class has a vested interest in making laws vague, ambiguous, and hard to understand; it makes it more difficult to challenge their position of privilege and authority. It also opens the door for governance through policy rather than law. In other words, it allows interpretation by those enforcing the laws: cops, prosecutors, judges, and finally, juries. Unfortunately, juries have given away their power to the judges and thus are not able to act as the bulwark against abuse they were intended to be. To persevere in the quest for justice in the face of these obstructions takes energy, time and money. The working class, in general, hasn't the time or energy to educate themselves (a never ending process) on the legal and political issues affecting their lives, they are too busy just trying to survive. Some of us try but it's hard to keep up. The required time alone can expand to take up all of your day This leaves precious little for having a real life; work, relationships, or raising the next generation. I personally know of at least one person who has fought the power structure to a standstill time and again to the accolades and well-wishes of neighbors and other concerned citizens. I watched as this person's personal life strained to the point of breaking and was destroyed by the required dedication. Things can change but not by the efforts of the few. Maybe it's time we all raise our kids to be lawyers; God help us!
    Tzadik likes this.

  11. #10
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,088
    As a former Nutmegger, I feel qualified to add this: Mike Lawlor is a shameless political hack. Don't ever confuse his words with anything but a same-old-dry-dog-food, politically liberal (= save the people from themselves, no matter the cost, they're too dumb to save themselves) party line.

    I must have sat in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford a dozen times over the years and heard this guy lip-sync with the Rosie O'Donnell crowd about RKBA and related legislation.

    I wish the term "liberal" was restricted to the usage that means "intellectually open-minded and willing to listen to all sides."
    oakchas likes this.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array shockwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,999
    Problem is, not everybody carrying openly is you: Mr Middle Class White Christian guy.

    How would you like to be dining at your local Waffle House and have a gang of 16 chollos come rolling in, with handguns, shotguns, and AKs held at port arms? Same thing with your friendly neighborhood Bloods and Crips. Hey - it's legal - right?

    But nobody ever thinks about that. They just imagine it's only good ol' Bud from the Chamber of Commerce who will be sporting a Glock in a Serpa holster on his hip. As I've said before, out in rural Idaho, Montana, places like that, OC is natural for ranchers and such, and unobjectionable.

    Concealed carry makes a lot more sense in dense urban environments, where you don't want to be unnecessarily alarming and frightening people.
    oakchas and DaveJay like this.
    "It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    Problem is, not everybody carrying openly is you: Mr Middle Class White Christian guy.

    How would you like to be dining at your local Waffle House and have a gang of 16 chollos come rolling in, with handguns, shotguns, and AKs held at port arms? Same thing with your friendly neighborhood Bloods and Crips. Hey - it's legal - right?

    But nobody ever thinks about that. They just imagine it's only good ol' Bud from the Chamber of Commerce who will be sporting a Glock in a Serpa holster on his hip. As I've said before, out in rural Idaho, Montana, places like that, OC is natural for ranchers and such, and unobjectionable.

    Concealed carry makes a lot more sense in dense urban environments, where you don't want to be unnecessarily alarming and frightening people.
    And once again if we didnt allow government, schools, and colleges, crappy parents, and media brain wash our youth into the mantra that guns are evil and people are not evil if they dont have guns then your whole picture you painted would not be true. Just sayin'
    Magnum likes this.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    And once again if we didnt allow government, schools, and colleges, crappy parents, and media brain wash our youth into the mantra that guns are evil and people are not evil if they dont have guns then your whole picture you painted would not be true. Just sayin'
    Well, schools don't really "liberalize" anyone. Children tend to believe as their parents do irregardless of what others say. The imprinting of the parents is greater than anything else in the K-12 years. Don't mistake the natural naive nature of youth for brainwashing. A lot of them say one thing, but actually believe something else which is evident in how they handle situations and through what they do.

    I see a lot of that working in IT at one of the local high schools.

    You mention crappy parents. Seeing as parents influence their kids more than anyone else, how can you deal with that? Unless we as a nation bring back the importance of family over everything else, that will not change.

    Besides that, how do you reconcile the fact that many conservatives and liberals are avid hunters who don't necessarilly believe in concealed carry? There is a divide even amongst us gun owners that many posting here have shown to be true. The real fight is to get people to stop treading on other people's right to make choices that don't effect other people in all reality.
    shockwave and peckman28 like this.

  15. #14
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    402
    BAck to the original issue of whether it will cause a commotion and an unfriendly contact with an LEO.... Keep it concealed and NONE of that ever happens. If they don't SEE it there is no issue.....
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    Problem is, not everybody carrying openly is you: Mr Middle Class White Christian guy.

    How would you like to be dining at your local Waffle House and have a gang of 16 chollos come rolling in, with handguns, shotguns, and AKs held at port arms? Same thing with your friendly neighborhood Bloods and Crips. Hey - it's legal - right?

    But nobody ever thinks about that. They just imagine it's only good ol' Bud from the Chamber of Commerce who will be sporting a Glock in a Serpa holster on his hip. As I've said before, out in rural Idaho, Montana, places like that, OC is natural for ranchers and such, and unobjectionable.

    Concealed carry makes a lot more sense in dense urban environments, where you don't want to be unnecessarily alarming and frightening people.
    Are you advocating that we allow the government to ignore the law? If you are uncomfortable with that particular freedom then petition your elected officials and ask them to restrict or take it away.
    Isn't this the problem we are having with certain gun laws now? The law says you can carry but the government disagrees with the law so they ignore it.

    Michael
    Magnum and baren like this.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

a person legally carrying a weapon court ruling
,
against constitution carry
,
closet gun nut
,
georgia restaurants disallowing weapons
,

open carry

,
states constitution carry crime rate
Click on a term to search for related topics.