Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Utah District judge says "Utah promotes firearm possession!"

  1. #1
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...2008-12-04.pdf

    By itself, mere possession of a firearm in public is not unlawful and may well represent the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Utah Constitution (recognizing the “individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes,” subject to the power of the Legislature to define the “lawful use of arms.”). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008) (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment onferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”); see also Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-500 to 530 (2003 & Supp. 2008) (Utah Firearms Act).

    In Utah, the carrying of a concealed weapon on one’s person in public is a matter of State licensing and regulation, and is routinely permitted pursuant to the applicable State statute. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-5-701 to 711 (Supp. 2008). The legislature has explicitly denied local governmental entities such as Salt Lake City the power to limit or restrict possession of a firearm on public property: “Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.” Utah Code Ann. § 53-5a-102 Supp. 2008); see University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 2006 UT 51, ¶ 11, 144 P.3d 1109, 1113 (observing that the enactment of § 53-5a-102 in 2004 “dramatically altered the legal landscape, rendering it clear that Utah’s firearms statutes are universally applicable”).

    The legislature has authorized municipalities only to “regulate and prevent the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks or any other dangerous or combustible material.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-47 (2007). As articulated by the Utah Legislature, public policy in this State may fairly be read to condone and even encourage gun ownership and the lawful possession and carrying of firearms in public places. Salt Lake City’s asserted governmental interest in its police officers’ response to a report of a “man with a gun” in a public park cannot be weighed in isolation from this oft-emphasized public policy. In that context, there may well be more individual constitutional rights at stake than the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  2. #2
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    In case anyone was wondering, this comes from a case brought by a man who was unlawfully detained after a "man with a gun" call.

    He had no gun.

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1076747

    Man Suing Salt Lake City Police for $10 Million in Damages

    A man who says he suffered injuries during a scuffle with Salt Lake City police officers today filed a lawsuit against them. Miles Lund is recovering in the hospital from surgery he says he needed following the assault, and his attorney is seeking $10 million in damages.
    Miles Lund loved to feed the ducks here at Liberty Park, it was one of his favorite things to do, and it was here where he allegedly received injuries that caused bleeding in his brain, known as a subdural hematoma. Lund had surgery a few days ago; his attorney says he's recovering well but is not yet out of danger.
    Here's what happened, according to Lund and his attorney. Lund was feeding the ducks in November when he saw a person with a dog off-leash. Now Lund reached into his pocket to pull out a sheet of park rules. The dog owner claimed Lund had a gun and called police. Police showed up and told Lund to raise his hands. Lund said he couldn't hear because of a disability. At that point the officers allegedly roughed him up, causing injuries, and did not find a weapon.
    Lund has told the media he hopes this never happens to anyone else.
    "The point is if Mr. Lund is going to obtain what he wants, which is this doesn't happen to anybody else ever again," said Clark Newhall, Lund's attorney, "the only way for him to do it is to slap the city up side the head with a lawsuit that costs them a lot of money."
    Lund is recovering at LDS Hospital. A spokesman with the Salt Lake City Police Department said the city will not comment on a pending lawsuit or investigation.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    ...Police showed up and told Lund to raise his hands. Lund said he couldn't hear because of a disability. At that point the officers allegedly roughed him up, causing injuries, and did not find a weapon. ...
    Well I hope this guy gets his money. Local PD needs to know that its not 'Okay' to 'rough Citizens up'. Sure, i get the whole, "oh, i was issuing commands", but isn't there something about probable cause and 3rd party hearsay that should have protected this man? Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. (?)

    At what point do we protect ourselves from police, i wonder. (Let the flaming begin.)

    Just for the record: i think its great PROFESSIONAL police are here to protect and serve, my gratitude diminishes with every Assault made by less-than Professional LEOs.

    Lemme guess, Mr. Lund was wearing a trench coat, had lots of tattoos and piercings, and wore a shirt that said ,"I hate pigs". is that why they were fearful of this man and determined him to be a threat? They didn't see a gun. Hmmm...

    These (non- professional) LEOs walk a round with Guns, mags, batons, stun guns, OC, cuffs and ballistics vest...why so freakin scared of 1 little old disabled man? 10 million? yea, that sounds about right.

    Too bad the Professionals that make up the majority of LEOs; that actually take time to be sure about their actions, don't have the opportunity to effectively 'weed' out these other guys. IMO.

    But what do i know. Im just an American Citizen.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Always remember that the time to make things right is AFTER the confrontation has been resolved peacefully. Comply with orders, regardless of how illegal they may be. Follow up accordingly with FOIA, complaints, lawsuits, etc...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    why so freakin scared of 1 little old disabled man?
    While I'm not condoning the use of excessive force at all by the cops...It only takes one person to shoot someone, including a cop.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    glock10mm wrote:
    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    why so freakin scared of 1 little old disabled man?
    While I'm not condoning the use of excessive force at all by the cops...It only takes one person to shoot someone, including a cop.
    This, of course, i agree with : Glock -

    however, i will assume that Mr. lund was not capable of physically ACTING aggressive. There was a MWAG call made...no gun was present or seen.

    Given this EXACT scenario, anyone with a vindictive personality can make a MWAG call on ANYONE! gun owner or not, and it will be understood that the local gang (LE), will 'rough them up' for them, the person with the grudge:

    Vindictive guy: "Aww man, he didn't have a gun after all? no, i wasn't lying - the piece of paper he was pulling out LOOKED like a gun to me" (right..)

    It opens a can of worms on Probable Cause, thats all.
    I mean, its just ironic that we are getting all over the Blackwater guys for their actions, and they were actually in a war zone (iraq), operating under stress (NO, i don't condone the killings of innocent people). But when it comes to (un-professional, there is a difference) LEO here, they just get the freedom to crack skulls.

Posting Permissions

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