imported post
antispam540 wrote:
ridgerunner98570 wrote:
I think this law is very vague. I believe that once it reaches the Supreme Court of the State, it will be thrown out. The law relies on a person being upset for their safety when the see open carry. And with many of the anti-gun crowd today, the mere sight of a firearm makes them fear for their safety. That provision is unconstitutionally vague. :banghead:
As has been posted 1000+ times before, the language is WARRANTS ALARM, not CAUSES ALARM. It doesn't matter if people are scared, just whether or not they have a good reason to be scared.
Yes, it's probably unconstitutionally vague.
It is vague but I do not think it is unconstitutionally vague. It does not restrict the carrying of a firearm. It restricts the way you carry it.
It is fairly narrow and is minimally intrusive. This is what the courts look at when passing it through the strict scrutiny test, which is what this law would go through because it deals with a fundamental right. They will also look at it and decide if a reasonable person, based on the wording of the law, could determine what types of manners, places, and times of carrying a firearm would warrant the alarm for the safety of other persons. I think the answer to this would be that a reasonable person could determine that.
The appellate courts have already told us that it is not unlawful to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm even if it would shock people, this means the law is drawn with a specific intent. They have told us that walking fast with your head down carrying an AK47 with a magazine attached is not responsible. They have told us that carrying a rifle cradled in your arms and wrapped in towels is responsible.
Now is looking menacingly, or eyeballing them, and placing your hand on your pistol responsible? This is the million dollar question at the moment and it will be answered, just give it time. Just do not expect the carry statute to be ruled unconstitutional for vagueness.