Horror in Utah! OCer handcuffed, detained, and cited.

[88GT]

Isn't disorderly conduct generally a "catch all" that can be widely interpreted?

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but it seems an officer has a lot of discretion to use disorderly conduct. Perhaps too much?

I don't think it's a threadjack at all. I think it goes to the heart of the matter. Discretion in this case leads to a charge/citation based more on opinion and personal preference than on codified law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I reject every premise of your post as asinine and puerile.

However, I am not surprised. Public sentiment has replaced common sense and apparently has the blessing of the legislatures and LE to enforce it.

Well, one of my premises was, and I'll quote.... "The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" for anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place."

agree or disagree?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're ing me right? "opportunity to cause mass panic"? If a person is engaged in a legal behavior, with no intent to cause harm, it's not their fault if a bunch of uninformed idiots are "panicked". I can remember back in the late 60's/early 70's when the local gas station shut off their pumps, the neighboring business's locked their doors,and 5 County Deputies responded. The cause of this "widespread panic". 6 guys with longhair on motorcycles, stopped in for a refuel and a burger. Oh the humanity of it all. Media hype instilling preconcieved notions in the vacant heads of the sheeple , does not justify citing someone for a legal activity.

Can you yell fire in a crowed theater? I mean 1st Amendment, right? It's a legal action, right? Or does one use the application of common sense and how that action will be viewed by the public?

 

[Bubba]

Are you suggesting that any time somebody OC's they should be stopped by every officer they see and detained? Should cops also pull over all motorists just to see that they were licensed? Probably cause must be shown. Courts have already determined that OC is NOT probable cause. Ergo, we don't have to PROVE our lawfulness.

Apples and oranges. The point of discussion I referenced in my post was whether 911 callers should be punished for MWAG calls on lawful armed citizens, specifically with the way the Indiana code is written. I maintain 911 callers should not be faulted even when the subject of the call is not breaking the law. I particularly stated that whether or not we should have to prove our worthiness to exercise our rights wasn't applicable to that topic.

I made no mention of the difference between stopping a person for investigation with probable cause and hassling a lawful citizen who has not given any indication of unlawful behavior. Nor did I raise the topic of having to have a permission slip to go armed. Please reread my post, including the portion of trnsplntfrmohio's post that I quoted, before taking offense.

 

[Whosyer]

Can you yell fire in a crowed theater? I mean 1st Amendment, right? It's a legal action, right? Or does one use the application of common sense and how that action will be viewed by the public?

Intent, is the difference. Yes, you can yell fire in a theater, if there is a fire. (and I hope that you would) Yelling fire in a theater, where there is none, with the intent to put people in harms way, is not a form of protected speech. Openly carrying a firearm, where there is no law to prevent it , with no intent to harm or incite, is fine and dandy. Bananas and grapes arguement actually.

 

[88GT]

Well, one of my premises was, and I'll quote.... "The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" for anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place."

agree or disagree?

What part of "every" did you not get?

Most assuredly, I DISAGREE.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Intent, is the difference. Yes, you can yell fire in a theater, if there is a fire. (and I hope that you would) Yelling fire in a theater, where there is none, with the intent to put people in harms way, is not a form of protected speech. Openly carrying a firearm, where there is no law to prevent it , with no intent to harm or incite, is fine and dandy. Bananas and grapes arguement actually.

THIS is the entire text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere within the text does it make exclusions, referencing intent. Purely on the surface, a person can say what they want, when they want, putting them in harms way or not. By you saying that a person cannot "yell fire in a theater," you are admitting that prohibitions outside of text are viable....

 

[Kutnupe14]

What part of "every" did you not get?

Most assuredly, I DISAGREE.

THIS is the entire text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I will remind you of my statement:

The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" for anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place.

If you disagreeeverything I said, that means you disagree with the above. That said, people incarcerated should have access to firearms, no? I mean that is clearly in violation of the 2nd correct? I don't believe that any prohibitions are stated. Am I getting you stance right, or do you agree that denying criminals acess to firearms while incarcerated is a good thing?

I'm just showing you guys that if you want to talk about rights, don't waiver in their applications.

 

[Whosyer]

THIS is the entire text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere within the text does it make exclusions, referencing intent. Purely on the surface, a person can say what they want, when they want, putting them in harms way or not. By you saying that a person cannot "yell fire in a theater," you are admitting that prohibitions outside of text are viable....

No, I believe the SCOTUS , and other courts, have ruled such. I'm just relaying that info.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, I believe the SCOTUS , and other courts, have ruled such. I'm just relaying that info.

I'm clear on how they have ruled, but the language of the Constitution is what it is. The SCOTUS ruling is an admission of interpetation outside the language of the Constitution being viable.

So do you personally agree with that SCOTUS ruling or not. You argument would carry more weight if you disagree with thier ruling.

 

[88GT]

THIS is the entire text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I will remind you of my statement:

The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" for anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place.

If you disagreeeverything I said, that means you disagree with the above. That said, people incarcerated should have access to firearms, no? I mean that is clearly in violation of the 2nd correct? I don't believe that any prohibitions are stated. Am I getting you stance right, or do you agree that denying criminals acess to firearms while incarcerated is a good thing?

I'm just showing you guys that if you want to talk about rights, don't waiver in their applications.

You're playing semantics and playing it poorly. The duly convicted and incarcerated have FORFEITED their rights. That's not a prohibition.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

 

[Lobo]

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're playing semantics and playing it poorly. The duly convicted and incarcerated have FORFEITED their rights. That's not a prohibition.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Can you can point me to the section of the Constitution that illustrates these protections are forfeited?
So you're saying that "The duly convicted and incarcerated" have no right to free speech, no right to be protected from Cruel and unusual punishment, ect? Well heck, bring out the goon swith the rubber hoses.
Or do govt's get to pick and choose which rights they can deny the "The duly convicted and incarcerated?"

You'd be surprised how well I play the semantics game.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, I wouldn't. A pistol is reasonable and ordinary. Many people carry handguns for self defense on a daily basis. A rifle is more of an offensive weapon, or a defensive weapon against a bad guy armed with a rifle. Not even the police walk around with rifles, unless there is a specific threat. They are capable of much greater range and far greater damage than is generally necessary for citizen self defense in the vast majority of cases. We do not live in Israel, under constant threat. It is also extremely rare to see a rifle carried openly in a crowded urban setting.

Therefore, taking this into account, yes I would question the motives of someone carrying a rifle in a public shopping area more than the vastly more common carry of a defensive pistol. I would not question the legality of the act, but I do think that it's something that is a reasonable cause for at least a cursory investigation by law enforcement.

The disorderly conduct arrest may or may not be BS, depending on case law in that area of the country. Can't really comment on that without more info.

That's an excellent point, how many people would be screaming "police state" if LEOs walked around with M4's strapped to their chests. I probably would myself.

 

[88GT]

Can you can point me to the section of the Constitution that illustrates these protections are forfeited?
So you're saying that "The duly convicted and incarcerated" have no right to free speech, no right to be protected from Cruel and unusual punishment, ect? Well heck, bring out the goon swith the rubber hoses.
Or do govt's get to pick and choose which rights they can deny the "The duly convicted and incarcerated?"

You'd be surprised how well I play the semantics game.

Actually, no, I wouldn't. It's a common ruse to disguise the fact that the substance of the argument is full of fail. The better the semantics game, the weaker the argument.

Would care to get back to discussing how you feel law-abiding people should be treated like criminals or not?

 

[88GT]

No, I wouldn't. A pistol is reasonable and ordinary. Many people carry handguns for self defense on a daily basis. A rifle is more of an offensive weapon, or a defensive weapon against a bad guy armed with a rifle. Not even the police walk around with rifles, unless there is a specific threat. They are capable of much greater range and far greater damage than is generally necessary for citizen self defense in the vast majority of cases. We do not live in Israel, under constant threat. It is also extremely rare to see a rifle carried openly in a crowded urban setting.

Therefore, taking this into account, yes I would question the motives of someone carrying a rifle in a public shopping area more than the vastly more common carry of a defensive pistol. I would not question the legality of the act, but I do think that it's something that is a reasonable cause for at least a cursory investigation by law enforcement.

The disorderly conduct arrest may or may not be BS, depending on case law in that area of the country. Can't really comment on that without more info.

But why do you consider a handgun normal and reasonable but a rifle is not? This is the crux of the issue. You've been programmed by society to think that there's an inherent difference when no such difference actually exists.

Assigning "offensive" or "defensive" labels to rifles and handguns is not justification for your position, it's an excuse. There is no logical, statistical basis for drawing a distinction between a man with a rifle and a man with a handgun.

The only reason it's out of the ordinary is because opinions still abound that view it as out of the ordinary. Somewhere, somehow firearms were relegated to the trash heap of public opinion. And instead of saying, FU, I'm carrying it anyway, gun owners cowered and put them away for the sake of playing nice. The result is that now the only we do see carrying firearms tend to be criminals because they clearly don't give a damn about public opinion.

I say it's time to change that. Why should a man be considered a threat for exercising his God-given right? Why? Accepting that is unacceptable to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, no, I wouldn't. It's a common ruse to disguise the fact that the substance of the argument is full of fail. The better the semantics game, the weaker the argument.

Would care to get back to discussing how you feel law-abiding people should be treated like criminals or not?

My arguments are concise, well-written, easy to follow, and examples have been provided. The gist of my argument is that the rights protected under the Constitution, are regularly voided by state gov, or modified to exclude certain individuals. Most people have no issue with many of these. Things like excessive bail, the Free Speech exception, denying criminals access to firearms, and the like. I certainly like all of the preceeding. These are popular because it protects the vast majority of people.
In this case, I would say that from a Constitution standpoint, his rights were certainly violated... But, that only after taking the First Amendment at face value. My point, is if you're going to read the Constitution as a literal word for word document, then you better read all of it that way. You don't have the luxury to decide what you do and don't agree with, and expect to have a legitimate argument.
So that said, if one's "Right to Bear Arms," is universal without prohibitions (which I do not agree with as even being close to the founders intent), then you must.... no if, ands, or buts, agree that it applies to any and everybody... regardless of who are where they are. That is, if your taking the Constitution at face value.

 

[Whosyer]

I'm clear on how they have ruled, but the language of the Constitution is what it is. The SCOTUS ruling is an admission of interpetation outside the language of the Constitution being viable.

So do you personally agree with that SCOTUS ruling or not. You argument would carry more weight if you disagree with thier ruling.

And your arguement would carry more weight if you stuck to the point.
Was the individual in the original post breaking the law by OCing a rifle ? Or to be even more specific, is it against the law in Utah to openly carry a rifle?

 

[Kutnupe14]

And your arguement would carry more weight if you stuck to the point.
Was the individual in the original post breaking the law by OCing a rifle ? Or to be even more specific, is it against the law in Utah to openly carry a rifle?

ok, ok, ok .... no more derail. Im off my soapbox

 

[jsharmon7]

My arguments are concise, well-written, easy to follow, and examples have been provided. The gist of my argument is that the rights protected under the Constitution, are regularly voided by state gov, or modified to exclude certain individuals. Most people have no issue with many of these. Things like excessive bail, the Free Speech exception, denying criminals access to firearms, and the like. I certainly like all of the preceeding. These are popular because it protects the vast majority of people.
In this case, I would say that from a Constitution standpoint, his rights were certainly violated... But, that only after taking the First Amendment at face value. My point, is if you're going to read the Constitution as a literal word for word document, then you better read all of it that way. You don't have the luxury to decide what you do and don't agree with, and expect to have a legitimate argument.
So that said, if one's "Right to Bear Arms," is universal without prohibitions (which I do not agree with as even being close to the founders intent), then you must.... no if, ands, or buts, agree that it applies to any and everybody... regardless of who are where they are. That is, if your taking the Constitution at face value.

But I don't care about the gun rights of those in jail, because I'm not in jail. I don't care about the gun rights of convicted felons, because I'm not a convicted felon. I don't care about the gun rights of the psychotic and mentally unfit, because I'm not psychotic and mentally unfit. I don't care about the gun rights of children, because I'm not a child. I just want to be able to carry my full auto M60 and my rocket launcher around without being bothered by the man. I don't really care whether you let anyone else do it, as long as I can.