Emotional Reactions Hurt Local Charities

California Penal Code § 415. Disturbing the Peace

Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:

(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.

(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction

Click to expand...

Disturbing the peace really doesnt apply here. No one is challenging anyone to a fight, no one would be making loud or unreasonable noise, and no one would be using offensive words. The chief is using this as a catch all to intimidate people for lawful behaviour. The violation of the fair policy is not a criminal act and is not an arrestable offense. If this was being held at a private venue the only thing I believe the police could do is ask you to leave, and then trespass you (PC 602) if you didnt comply. Since this is a public event, in a public venue they would have to find another PC to run you in on.

ConditionThree said:

The violation of the fair policy is not a criminal act and is not an arrestable offense. If this was being held at a private venue the only thing I believe the police could do is ask you to leave, and then trespass you (PC 602) if you didnt comply. Since this is a public event, in a public venue they would have to find another PC to run you in on.

Click to expand...

+1.

Here's a Tennessee AG opinion on whether or not prohibiting "gang clothing" would be constitutional: http://www.tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op114.pdf
The AG finds that such a regulation would be unconstitutionally vague and declares a specific Tennessee statute to be overbroad. In short, bearing arms is constitutionally protected behavior. The fair is infringing on your rights and they will continue to do so until you convince them otherwise or until a court helps convince them otherwise.

bigtoe416 said:

+1.

Here's a Tennessee AG opinion on whether or not prohibiting "gang clothing" would be constitutional: http://www.tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op114.pdf
The AG finds that such a regulation would be unconstitutionally vague and declares a specific Tennessee statute to be overbroad.

Click to expand...

There are definately cases right here in CA and in the 9th circuit which have both upheld and shotdown some specific instances of 'clothing bans'

I am not particularly well-versed on the subject, but I'll give you my layman's understanding.

I think the specific ban against a free-speech item like clothing is required to have very specific reasons for 1A limitation. For example: a ban at the county faire of motorcycle club 'colors' The ban would need to articulate that there is a clear safety risk of rival clubs duking it out, shooting, etc that causes an unwanted tangible danger. Lots of citable refereces for that example...

Whereas something standalone suchas 'no purple shirts' wouldn't fly.

In other words, they can't arbitrarily deny a constitutional right without explicit justification.

BTW, I'm not saying its correct todo such things...but I think that's how it works...

If anyone would like to voice their displeasure with the policies, threats, and failure to abide by the constitution that has been seen here, please send an email to: mbfair@southbayopencarry.org

It is an alias that will forward the email to the fair committee, city council, and police chief.

Thank you all for your continued support and letters!
I've seen dozens of letters to the city and fair officials now. Several will be posted on our website: www.southbayopencarry.org

We also have the eyes and ears of local press who are curious as to why a city and fair would violate civil rights...


Keep up the good work! Let them know how you feel about the city and fair infringing on your 2A rights: mbfair@southbayopencarry.org

1. It is our understanding that a private entity can pose reasonable restrictions on their event, such as banning dogs, skateboards, rollerblades, gang attire, liquor, firearms, etc. I see such signs at a variety of events…some of our local swap meets come to mind if I’m not mistaken.

2. People who come to the site that choose not to follow such rules may be subject to a private persons arrest by those in control of the event for disturbing the peace and/or trespassing. For further clarification, we will ask the local prosecutors for the exact section to charge should it be necessary, though, we hope it will not.

3. It is against the law for the police not to honor a private persons arrest for what appears to be a violation of the law. Thus, if there is a violation, we will ask that the person cooperate and leave the event and they can return unarmed. If someone refuses to abide by the Fair rules and refuses to leave, and the Board desires an arrest, an arrest will be made.

Click to expand...

Okay- so he understands that reasonable restrictions may be instituted by private entities. But does this apply on public sidewalks, streets and private property with public access (ie: businesses directly adjacent to the fair)? Again, is there any limitation of access for enforcement of this restriction and will the private entity be screening entrants? Are the boundaries of the event even marked?

If a person chooses not to follow the 'reasonable restriction' imposed by the private entity, and a private persons arrest is accepted for what 'appears' to be a violation of the law, the party affecting the arrest is open to civil liability should the arrest be under false charges. The chief again has failed to articulate what charges would be leveled on someone who was not violating the law, but a 'reasonable restriction' imposed by a private entity. In my view neither 'disturbing the peace' nor 'tresspassing' applies as in the first case, the peacable carry of a firearm does not meet the statutory decscription of the violation and public property (that is open to the public) is not a location where you can trespass them unless the area is closed to public access.