Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Attorney General official opinion - open carry is legal

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Attorney General official opinion - open carry is legal

    http://www.4029tv.com/news/arkansas-...ansas/34978560

    http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.pdf

    Leslie's logic if extremely flawed, even though she does come to conclude that "open carry" is legal.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Well yeah, absolutely, kind of, sort of, maybe.

    The BS about the cops being allowed to stop someone to inquire as to their intent [to use the handgun illegally] seems to disregard Terry. RAS seems to have been given passing consideration only to be discarded in favor of letting cops ask "Whatcha gonna do wit dat blaster, kid?" just because they see you openly carrying.

    I'm tired and not in the mood to do a lot of thinking about this, let alone looking up various decisions, so I'll ask others to weigh in on the notion.

    Before I go, I just want to note the absolute discrimination being shown between OCers and CCers. Nothing was said at all about stopping CCers and inquiring about their intent to use the handgun illegally. It's not about how you carry, but what you intend to do with the handgun you are carrying. Singling out OCers is a blatant violation of our civil and constitutional right to be treated equally. (I'd add a smiley to indicate this is just light-hearted ranting but it really is not.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
    Posts
    561
    Wow, 17 pages of clarification!

    If you weren't crazy when you started reading that.......

    Looked like she repeated herself and her four points about a dozen times. Our AG put out that memo in 2009 I think, in about 4 or 5 pages. It isn't like she didn't have a template or anything. I'm guessing most people, not lawyers, stopped reading about page three. I skimmed through it, just looked like the same stuff being repeated over and over again to cover a SLIGHTLY different scenario.

    I would be in the "not lawyer" group.
    Last edited by Wstar425; 08-29-2015 at 09:40 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    The whole thing is pretty disorganized, repetitive, verbose, and contradicting, in my opinion. But there are a number of specific places that are particularly troubling to me.

    Certainly one could not be in violation of § 5-73-120 for carrying a concealed handgun without a license, sans unlawful intent, else she would be contradicting herself, as she states that unlawful intent is necessary to be in violation of § 5-73-120. She states toward the end of the rag, however, that carrying a concealed handgun without a license may well magically establish unlawful intent all by itself, but offers zero reference as to what statute one would be intending to violate; she only vaguely murmurs on about how someone might be "flouting" the almighty authority of the state by deciding they'd rather not pay the “regime” as part of the “scheme” (her words) for a license in order to exercise a right.

    See poppycock below:
    "Finally, from what I have already said, it should be clear that someone who possesses a concealed handgun (without a concealed-carry permit) may well, by that fact alone, be found to have violated § 5-73-120(a). The laws requiring a license to carry a concealed handgun still have full force and effect. Nothing in Act 746, § 5-73-120(a), or this opinion is intended to suggest a person may carry a concealed handgun without a properly issued concealed-carry license. 27 In fact, it is likely that the Arkansas Supreme Court would allow the presumption that a person who has flouted the concealed-carry regime in Arkansas law by possessing a concealed handgun without a concealed-carry license has the requisite unlawful intent for a violation of§ 5-73-120(a). At the very least, except in the most unusual of circumstances, possessing a concealed handgun without a concealed-carry license would on its own provide an officer with reasonable suspicion and probable cause that a person has the unlawful intent necessary to be (and thus is) in violation of § 5-73-120(a)."

    "The laws requiring a license to carry a concealed handgun still have full force and effect." But what law, though, requires a license to carry a concealed handgun? Previously, § 5-73-120 could be said to have constructed this requirement with its various subcomponents and in combination with other laws, but no longer, since unlawful intent is now necessary to be in violation.

    "a person who has flouted the concealed-carry regime in Arkansas law by possessing a concealed handgun without a concealed-carry license has the requisite unlawful intent" But what statute, though, is the concealed carrier intending to violate? The writer references none, as there is none, but instead of providing an actual law gives “flouting” the “regime” as the grand offense. Without another law creating an offense which one would be in violation of for carrying a concealed handgun without a license, one cannot be said to have unlawful intent by carrying a concealed handgun without a license. My conclusion here is obviously the logical one.

    Edit: was going to bold certain portions, and add a few other comments, but the bolding just made things harder to read, and the additional comments were not important.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 08-29-2015 at 10:28 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
    Posts
    561
    The whole "journey" exception seems to be entirely unnecessary. Why does it matter where you are going or how far away it is? Could one not encounter the need for self defense right outside your front door? That's a couple of pages of "clarification", thank you very much!

    It's crazy how different states have these little one off rules in their law, unlike anyone else. New Mexico three foot rule comes to mind. There is no way a mere mortal can keep track of all of this, should you decide to travel outside of a few states. Or, over the county line in Arkansas

    I pity the individual who decides to take the "journey" of reading her ramblings. Manifesto seems the proper word almost!

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    The entire AG's "opinion" is a roadmap for various things in AR law which need correcting.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    The entire AG's "opinion" is a roadmap for various things in AR law which need correcting.
    Yep. Any law the criminalizes intent, assumes it's possible to prove intent. The bigger problem though is that it allows LEO's to use anything that could indicate intent for reasonable suspicion in a very vague way, which the AG points out... things like demeanor, gait, proximity to criminal activity, etc... none of which would make it illegal, but when the law in question is someone's "intent", then them just "looking suspicious" in the eyes of law enforcement would be probably cause very poor law. I'd also agree that LEO's can ask what your intent is... actually they can ask whatever they want until you clam up and state you want your lawyer present. That's why they always start with "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Who knows what you'll confess to before they say your blinker was turned on just a tad too late

Posting Permissions

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