Felony Menacing is to knowingly place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon, ie intentionally pointing your gun at someone or threatening to shoot them. I've never heard of Felony Menacing being used to harass an OCer. The lower threshold RAS threat would be Disorderly Conduct: CRS 18-9-106, "Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.". The operative phrase there would be "in a manner calculated to alarm" which, in the case of an openly carried, holstered handgun, should be quickly dispelled by the fact that the responding LEOs are wearing their firearms in exactly the same fashion ("Are you displaying YOUR firearm in a manner calculated to alarm, Officer?") Yet even the "Disorderly Conduct" catch-all is BS. Remember, OC isn't just LEGAL, it is CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.
If an LEO threatens to use Disorderly Conduct or Felony Menacing against you in order to get you to ID, run your firearm's serial or make you cease your activity, let them know that you are engaging in Constitutionally Protected activities and that their attempt to deprive you of your civil rights under color of law makes them PERSONALLY liable for damages under a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 USC 1983: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." They are NOT immune as LEOs from a federal 1983 lawsuit.
The question here is not whether you're engaging in permissible activity. If you are engaging in prima facia illegal activity, while in possession of a firearm, you'll probably already be on the ground at gun point or at the very least the LEO won't stand there and argue with you about RAS. They will ORDER you to comply and if you don't they'll use force. This discussion isn't about that kind of encounter. In that type of encounter they already have RAS, even if their suspicions prove false, and they are prepared to defend their actions in court.
The question here is whether the LEO is willing use the THREAT of RAS of a crime to detain, ID and search you when they don't really have it. Why does the LEO even care at this point? They are either trying to intimidate you into not OCing or they are fishing (hoping you have a warrant, stolen firearm, some other illegal possession uncovered during the encounter, etc). But in reality they don't have RAS at this point. The MWAG call is NOT RAS. The Man with a Concealed Firearm call COULD be RAS, because CC is ILLEGAL by default (read SCOTUS Florida vs J.L. regarding when a MWA concealed gun call is RAS). OC is LEGAL by default. The MWAG call (holstered OC) is no different from "There's a guy wearing an expressive T-Shirt and it makes me uncomfortable". Get over it caller. If they had RAS, they'd already be using it. They don't, but they may still be willing to threaten you. What they really want, other than to intimidate you, is to gain your CONSENT to search/seizure via the threat. This is where it's important that you are recording the entire affair and, unless you are already planning on a lawsuit, you let them KNOW that it's recorded. More than likely YOUR threat of a 1983 suit, while the entire encounter is being recorded, will be enough to dissuade them from continuing the encounter. Obviously if push comes to shove, comply. If you end up having to give them your ID under threat of arrest, you'l have grounds for a 1983 suit for an unconstitutional search and seizure. If they ID you, they'll probably disarm you which adds a 2A violation and another unconstitutional seizure to the suit. If they run the serial # that's another unconstitutional search. During each of these exercises do your best to let them know in no certain terms that you do NOT consent to this search, you do not consent to this seizure and you do not consent to being disarmed, and that each of these violations is unconstitutional.
