Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Do Not Legally Open Carry in Mobile, AL, You Are Brandishing!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    This makes me sick!

    Knowing how intense you guys are about the right to bear arms (more so that on other forums), you all will appreciate this. It's debatable that it was unwise for the guy to do this, but he did nothing unlawful.

    "Mobile police said they plan to arrest a man today who scared people Friday evening as he walked through a Spring Hill neighborhood with a loaded, semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.

    Officers confiscated the rifle Friday but could not take the man into custody until they had a warrant signed by both a magistrate and the man who made the complaint, Mobile police spokesman Officer Eric Gallichant said.

    Gallichant said that on Monday, a magistrate signed a warrant for a charge of disorderly conduct, and officers expected to obtain the signature of one of the witnesses today. Once that is done, the man will be arrested, he said.

    Gallichant said, however, that he would not release the man's name Monday because officers had not yet obtained the second signature needed to activate the warrant.

    While it is not illegal to carry an assault rifle, it is against the law to use the gun to alarm people, Gallichant said.

    "I think it is important that people understand that although he may not be specifically charged with carrying a weapon out in the open like that, just the act of doing so can cause public alarm, which is covered by disorderly conduct," Gallichant said.

    "Carrying one around in that manner in the neighborhood, even though he did not point it at someone, is not to be taken lightly."

    The man who had the gun lives on Oakwood Lane, Gallichant said.

    Jeferey Quinelly, another Spring Hill resident, filed the complaint and most likely will be the person to sign the arrest warrant, Gallichant said.

    Spring Hill resident Sean P. Costello said the man, who is in his early 20s, was spotted by several people about 6 p.m. Friday, walking along Oakwood and Dilston lanes.

    Costello said Monday that he did not see the man, but two of his neighbors and his gardener did. He said that although no one saw the man point the rifle at anyone, people were frightened. He said the gardener, who had just started cutting the grass, was so frightened that he fled without finishing the job.

    Costello said the whole incident frightened his 4-year-old daughter.

    Even though the man didn't threaten anyone or point the rifle at them, such incidents can lead to violence, Costello said.

    "When you've got someone walking up and down the street with a loaded assault rifle ... there is always the possibility that it can get out of hand, and people can get hurt," he said.

    Larry McCoy, owner of Larry's Gun Shop in the 2700 block of Pleasant Valley Road just off Government Boulevard, said Monday that he sells a Romanian-made, AK-47-style weapon for $400.

    McCoy said federal law states that a person 18 or older who is not a convicted felon can legally purchase a semiautomatic assault rifle.

    Anyone who meets the federal requirements can be in and out of his shop within 10 minutes, armed with an AK-47-style weapon and bullets.

    McCoy said, however, that he will not sell an assault rifle to anyone under 21 because he does not believe a teenager is mature enough to handle such a weapon. He said the Spring Hill incident disturbs him.

    "It is not socially acceptable," McCoy said. "You just don't do that."

    http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...amp;thispage=1

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    This is already being discused here... http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum59/3611.html ...while I agree with your sentiment, he wasn't arrested for brandishing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Thank you and sorry for the re-post. Moderators please delete this.

    You're right it is disorderly conduct. I'm sorry I wasn't careful with details in my rage.


  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Andrewsky wrote:
    Thank you and sorry for the re-post. Moderators please delete this.

    You're right it is disorderly conduct. I'm sorry I wasn't careful with details in my rage.

    Welcome aboard Andrewsky!

    My intent wasn't to "scold" you...just point you to the conversation

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Why do they presume that he intended to alarm anyone?

    -ljp

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    Why do they presume that he intended to alarm anyone?
    Well, obviously by OC'ing any arm, your intent is clearly to alarm isn't it?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    There doesn't have to be intent to be charged with disorderly conduct. It states that:

    A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

    (1) Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior;

    blah blah blah

    My guess is they will make a case that he was recklessly tumultuous or recklessly threatening.

    Problem is for the tumultuous one, is it says violent tumultous. Plus, to be tumultuous actually requires a specific action of inciting violence.

    For the threatening, well that's a bit more viable, however it still has problems. I would find it hard to argue that someone could be "unknowingly and recklessly involved in threatening behavior". In addition, I cannot find a single case in Alabama where someone was convicted of DC for appearing threatening. If this guy gets convicted I'm going to start signing warrants for large and muscular people..... For a small nerdy person like me they are threatening

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    It has to be intentional or reckless in Ohio (in any case fairly narrowly defined), thankfully. Self-defense is a recognized lawful and reasonable purpose (in our state constitution anyway), so you might be able to challenge the "reckless" aspect on that basis, I should think. As long as you're not drunk, threatening, and/or brandishing, it sounds like a weak case.

    -ljp

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Well three important legal documents would be:

    Alabama Constitution Section 26:

    "Right to bear arms. That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

    Code of Alabama 13A-11-7:

    "Disorderly conduct. (a) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
    (1) Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

    ..."

    Also would be 15-5-31:

    "Search for dangerous weapon; procedure if weapon or other thing found. When a sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger of life or limb, he may search such person for a dangerous weapon. If such officer finds such a weapon or any other thing, the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    pumpkinville
    Posts
    59

    does this law really make sense?

    let me get this straight he was carrying a rifle with a sling on his back and walking in public and he was arrested for this even though he didn't even reach for his gun? this is crazy. So if I have an ugly face with pimples or i have an accident where i look hideous to the eye is that disorderly conduct? I am just testing how applicable really that law is :\

  11. #11
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "Mobile police said they plan to arrest a man today who scared people Friday evening as he walked through a Spring Hill neighborhood with a loaded, semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.

    Most likely, this same guy as a child always had to be the center of attention.

    Guess he accomplished what he set out to do.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by opencarrypalmtrees View Post
    let me get this straight he was carrying a rifle with a sling on his back and walking in public and he was arrested for this even though he didn't even reach for his gun? this is crazy. So if I have an ugly face with pimples or i have an accident where i look hideous to the eye is that disorderly conduct? I am just testing how applicable really that law is :\
    I don't know the outcome of this case; it is four years old. However, Jonathon Norris was recently convicted of disorderly conduct in Birmingham simply for carry. He is in the process of appealing. We had a bill in front of the AL legislature that would specifically prevent these abuses. ALOC didn't have the wherewithal to properly advocate for its passage. I don't see the situation improving.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by kurtmax_0 View Post
    Well three important legal documents would be:

    Alabama Constitution Section 26:

    "Right to bear arms. That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
    The carrier has the right to keep and bear arms. Merely a reflection of 2A.

    Code of Alabama 13A-11-7:

    "Disorderly conduct. (a) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
    (1) Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior; or...
    This could be a problem, first for the prosecutor, as they will have to prove either intent or recklessness. Proving intent would be difficult - who's to say what his intent was? Proving recklessness might seem easier, except for the fact that if the law doesn't specifically prohibit it, and actually allows RKBA, how could it be reckless?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Anyone know how this one turned out? It seems very close to the predicament Mr. Norris is in and might have relevant court precedence.

    Always the AK guys getting arrested...
    Last edited by Daylen; 12-02-2011 at 10:06 PM.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    kurtmax_0 made an important point in his post, that apparently went unnoticed. The officer's admit they had no authority to arrest him that night, but they unlawfully seized his property anyway. Alabama law states that if the officer seizes a weapon, at the end of the stop he "shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person." There is no middle ground. Either you give the gun back and leave, or you arrest and keep the gun. The officer has no grounds for seizing the weapon without arrest.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    "Mobile police said they plan to arrest a man today who scared people Friday evening as he walked through a Spring Hill neighborhood with a loaded, semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.

    Most likely, this same guy as a child always had to be the center of attention.

    Guess he accomplished what he set out to do.
    How do you figure?

    With your logic everyone who open carries is some attention ***** out to scare people?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Under the interpretation of this law by Mobile PD, people with tattoos, people in "biker clothes", African American men wearing saggy pants and Phillies caps, or anyone who looks remotely Arabic could be arrested for DC because some bed-wetting ninny "felt threatened by their appearance"...

    This case sets a VERY dangerous precedent with regards to not just 2A issues, but also 1A, 4A, an 14A rights...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    How do you figure?

    With your logic everyone who open carries is some attention ***** out to scare people?

    With your logic, I guess it would probably be acceptable to open carry a bazooka.
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 12-03-2011 at 10:35 PM.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    With your logic, I guess it would probably be acceptable to open carry a bazooka.

    Logical Fallacy Violation.

    Argumentum ad Absurdum.

    Flag down...


    Bazookas are "destructive devices" and as such are Class III devices, and are NOT legal to OC (or even transport) in most jurisdictions without special notification to the local LEAs by the owner.

    Although I'm all for the rights of Citizens to own such devices, and to use them in appropriate circumstances if they like, I don't think any rational person could ever define a bazooka as a "self defense firearm".

    Technically, a bazooka isn't really even a "firearm"--it is a rocket launching device.
    Last edited by Dreamer; 12-03-2011 at 09:04 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  20. #20
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Logical Fallacy Violation.

    Argumentum ad Absurdum.

    Flag down...


    Bazookas are "destructive devices" and as such are Class III devices, and are NOT legal to OC (or even transport) in most jurisdictions without special notification to the local LEAs by the owner.

    Although I'm all for the rights of Citizens to own such devices, and to use them in appropriate circumstances if they like, I don't think any rational person could ever define a bazooka as a "self defense firearm".

    Technically, a bazooka isn't really even a "firearm"--it is a rocket launching device.
    I knew it was illegal to carry a bazooka.

    I was trying to make a point that it would be just as ridiculous to open carry a bazooka as it is to open carry an AK-47 type rifle.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  21. #21
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Is there a final outcome for this case from 4 years ago?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    I knew it was illegal to carry a bazooka.

    I was trying to make a point that it would be just as ridiculous to open carry a bazooka as it is to open carry an AK-47 type rifle.
    Explain your reasoning of why it is ridiculous to OC an AK-47 type rifle.

  23. #23
    Regular Member xdmcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St Louis City
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    I knew it was illegal to carry a bazooka.

    I was trying to make a point that it would be just as ridiculous to open carry a bazooka as it is to open carry an AK-47 type rifle.
    So all the open carriers in california that after January 1st, that will have had their right to open carry handguns taken away, are idiots because now all they have is open carry of long guns like AK's and AR's? How would you suggest they protect themselves until california legislature gets their heads out of their asses and allows OC again?

    It is either all or nothing not lets allow open carry of a certain type of weapon, lets say handguns but no other weapons are allowed to be open carried? Makes no sense, we are here for all weapons rights, this kind of mindset is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. What makes it ok with one type of weapon but not any other?

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    I knew it was illegal to carry a bazooka.

    I was trying to make a point that it would be just as ridiculous to open carry a bazooka as it is to open carry an AK-47 type rifle.
    I think the point of the post to which you replied was that an AK could be a "self-defense weapon." No reasonable person would refer to a bazooka as being for self-defense.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Explain your reasoning of why it is ridiculous to OC an AK-47 type rifle.
    Two words come to mind...mall ninja.

    I can think of no possible "need" that any civilian could have to justify openly carrying (what the media commonly refers to as an) assault rifle down a city street or into the local Walmart, unless it is to "show boat".
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 12-03-2011 at 10:53 PM. Reason: edited for the sake of clarity.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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