Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 118

Thread: Man well within his rights, might be arrested OCing.

  1. #1
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290

    Man well within his rights, might be arrested OCing.

    check this link out. This guy was breaking no law, but charges might be filed because of disorderly conduct. Ridiculous!

    http://www.ksl.com/?sid=14047833&nid=148
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Gun owners must act with decorum, advocate says

    Meanwhile, gun rights advocate Clark Aphosian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council says just because you can, it doesn't always mean you should carry openly.

    Aphosian said property owners have every right to ask someone to leave, especially if that property is a business.

    "In these heady days of terrorism and multiple-victim shootings and public shootings, it is going to cause people to take a second or third look," Aphosian said. "I think people that are carrying the firearms probably, truth be told, expect to be stopped or questioned."

    Gun owners need to act with decorum, as do citizens and property owners, Aphosian said.

    "Both need to be exercise with appropriate decorum," he said. "I think both can coexist at the same time."

    Aphosian said people doing something just because they can should also expect to be questioned. And if they violate some law in the process, they also should also expect to face possible penalties. At the same time, he said, gun ownership rights should be respected
    Does anyone read any problems with Mr. Aphosian's viewpoint? To me it seems he is on the side of the mall and does not have a problem with the prosecutor filling disorderly conduct charges because the OCer did not use what he considers "proper decorum".

    I hope folks in Utah on the RKBA side have a little sit down with Clark Aphosian and explain to him that lawful means lawful. The lawful exercise of our 2A right must be defended at every turn. Sometimes, it seems, our RKBA "leaders" are our own worst enemy.

    Here is what the city prosecutor has to work with, to the best of my knowledge.

    Utah Code; 76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
    (1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
    (a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
    (b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
    (i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
    (ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
    (iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or
    (iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
    (2) "Public place," for the purpose of this section, means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes but is not limited to streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.
    (3) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by a person to desist. Otherwise it is an infraction.

    ----------

    Utah County Codes. 13-1-1. Adoption of Utah Criminal Code.
    The Utah Criminal Code, Sections 76-1-101 et seq., of the Utah Code, is hereby adopted as a Utah County Ordinance. Provided, however, that any provision of the foregoing having a penalty which cannot be imposed for violation of a county ordinance is not adopted.

    ----------

    Orem City Code.11-1-3. Nuisance - Definition. This section defines nuisance by providing five general definitions of what constitutes a nuisance (subsection A), and then providing specific examples of situations, conduct or activities that constitute nuisances (subsection B). The purpose of the general definitions is to allow the City to classify an offending situation, conduct, or activity as a nuisance, even though the situation, conduct, or activity may not be listed as a nuisance in the specific examples. The first three general definitions are taken directly from Utah State law. The purpose of listing the specific examples is to identify some of the specific situations, conduct and activities that the City intends to abate as nuisances.

    A. General Definitions of Nuisance. Any activity that meets any one or more of the five definitions set forth below shall constitute a nuisance if it occurs within the City of Orem:
    1. Nuisance as Defined in U.C.A. 78-38-1(1). Anything which is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
    2. Nuisance as Defined in U.C.A. 76-10-801. Any item, thing, manner, or condition whatsoever that it is dangerous to human life or health or renders soil, air, water, or food impure or unwholesome.
    3. Nuisance as Defined in U.C.A. 76-10-803. Unlawfully doing any act or omitting to perform any duty, which act or omission:
    a. annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of three or more persons;
    b. offends public decency;
    c. unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dangerous for passage, any lake, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway; or
    d. in any way renders three or more persons insecure in life or the use of property. An act which affects three or more persons in any of the ways specified in this subsection is still a nuisance regardless of the extent to which the annoyance or damage inflicted on individuals is unequal.
    4. Nuisance. A condition which:
    a. wrongfully annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others
    ; or
    b. unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, any public park, square, street or highway, or any other public place; or
    c. in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property, and which affects the rights of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of the damage may be unequal.
    5. Specific Nuisances Listed in Subsection B. Anything specifically listed as a nuisance in subsection (B), below.

    B. Nuisances Enumerated. Every situation, conduct or activity listed below constitutes a nuisance and may be abated pursuant to this ordinance. The listed examples are not exhaustive; a situation, conduct or activity not listed below, but coming within one of the general definitions of nuisance listed above, shall also constitute a nuisance. The first six listed nuisances are also listed as nuisances pursuant to U.C.A. 78 38 9:
    6. Weapons. Every building or premises where a violation of Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5 (Weapons) of the Utah Code occurs on the premises.
    7. Unsafe Condition. A condition that unreasonably or unlawfully affects the health or safety of one or more persons.
    28. Inappropriate Conduct. Every property or premises where there exists an environment which causes, encourages or allows individuals or groups of individuals to commit one or more of the following acts on the property, premises or adjacent public place, including but not limited to:
    d. By physical action, intentionally causing or attempting to cause another person to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury or the commission of a criminal act upon their person or upon property in their immediate possession;
    ....ANNOYS?....REPOSE?....c'mon Orem Utah....if this code were enforced equally, nobody would be walking the streets in Orem.

    I think the prosecutor can argue that this guy was disorderly, he just has to convince a judge that he is within the law to punish this guy.

    I hope the prosecutor takes a pass on this one. If he does not take a pss I hope the OCer gets a good lawyer and pounces all over Orem's check book.

    Clark Aphosian, lacking any other knowledge of his efforts for the RKBA in Utah, is a tool on this specific issue.
    Last edited by OC for ME; 03-11-2011 at 09:11 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
    Last edited by bikemutt; 03-11-2011 at 09:52 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Lawful is,,

    Quote Originally Posted by bikemutt View Post
    My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
    Lawful is lawful. If these people weren't so dang scared to death over seeing a weapon no one would have even bothered to call the cops. The one caller said he was carrying an automatic rifle,,how did he know what the rifles abilities were? They've all been led by the nose by the lamestream media to think that all "black ugly guns" are automatic "Assault Rifles" The mans plans may have been to cause an uproar, to prove a point. Bu he should not be prosecuted. His LAWFUL carrying of weapons was not against the law. What should be against the law is stupid people calling 911 needlessly because they go Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by blackmarine View Post
    So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!

    That's nonsense.


    Duke
    TY for your support LOL
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Activist Member N605TW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    118
    It makes my blood boil when someone tells me "It's a legal activity, but you can't do it." If they do charge him with being a nuisance I think it only fair that everyone who has a hair cut I don't like, dresses in a way I don't like, has a tattoo I don't like, drives a car I don't like, etc. gets fined because mowhawks, baggie shorts, hello kitty tattoos and pintos endangers my comfort.
    I'm going to end my rant here before I say something I shouldn't

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by bikemutt View Post
    My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
    From the news story "Police received several 911 calls that morning about a man armed with a rifle and a handgun walking down the street in front of the mall at the intersection of University Parkway and State Street in Orem."

    Not IN the mall, walking down the street IN FRONT OF THE MALL. Comments such as yours perpetuate OC is "not a good idea at times" when his action was completely within the law.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    sounds like disorderly conduct statutes should be ruled unconstitutionally vague.

  9. #9
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by bikemutt View Post
    My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
    He never entered the mall, and even if he did (as ill advised as it might be) he has broken NO LAW! No one should be able to pick and choose which laws are going to be enforced, and how and when they will be enforced. How would you feel if you went to get your paper at 6:00am in your pajamas. Someone calls the police saying your exposing yourself. You say it isn't against the law to do this. The LEO says I think TODAY it is. My point if he gets in trouble for this then which law abiding OCer will be next, just because he scares someone?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  10. #10
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by N605TW View Post
    It makes my blood boil when someone tells me "It's a legal activity, but you can't do it." If they do charge him with being a nuisance I think it only fair that everyone who has a hair cut I don't like, dresses in a way I don't like, has a tattoo I don't like, drives a car I don't like, etc. gets fined because mowhawks, baggie shorts, hello kitty tattoos and pintos endangers my comfort.
    I'm going to end my rant here before I say something I shouldn't
    If I lived in that town I would start calling th police saying things like what you have mentioned. Only in support of this guys "rights" ( I say this because would I choose to walk around a mall with an AR15, prolly not but he has the right)
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by blackmarine View Post
    So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!

    That's nonsense.


    Duke
    I said no such thing, I don't believe he should be charged with a crime.

    Look, it's perfectly legal to walk into a shopping mall in one's underwear, and no one should get arrested or charged for that either, but it will raise eyebrows and possibly more

  12. #12
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by bikemutt View Post
    I said no such thing, I don't believe he should be charged with a crime.

    Look, it's perfectly legal to walk into a shopping mall in one's underwear, and no one should get arrested or charged for that either, but it will raise eyebrows and possibly more
    actually depending on what the underwear was, it may NOT be legal. Indecent exposure, ever heard of that?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by protect our rights View Post
    actually depending on what the underwear was, it may NOT be legal. Indecent exposure, ever heard of that?
    Good point. The "People of Walmart" emails that come around from time to time make the case the just because you can, doesn't mean you should

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Lots of viable options why someone may have a LEGITIMATE reason to carry an unloaded rifle across a mall parking lot. Not one has been mentioned in the news articles I've read.

    While I would not choose to carry an UNLOADED rifle with NO ammunition on my person as a self defense tool, this person may have merely been going to a friends house to "show off a weapon", or to meet someone in a NEUTRAL area for a sale of a firearm,OR....

    It is up to the prosecution to prove that he violated the law that he MAY be charged with violating. I don't know that he has been charged or not. Personally, I don't see where his actions or behavior rise to the level of Disorderly Conduct--- not that I am thinking he was wise in his choices!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gravel Switch, KY
    Posts
    544
    This was back from January 18th.

    Officers say that's because the man's actions caused a disturbance to many people, especially because it happened just one week after the tragic shooting in Tucson.
    I first wanted to post, "Did Kwik move to Utah?"

  16. #16
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Im glad that the law enforcement didnt try arressting him for DO at the time of this incident. That shows professionalism on the leo's part, and respect for the laws they swore to uphold. Most cops would have threw him in a cruiser just to show the power they have. I also believe that OCing a rifle at a mall is a lil much being as there was no state of emergency or nething going on. However, it is his right, and he is entitled to do whatever he deems necessary. Now that the chief wants the city prosecutor to file DO charges against him after the fact, I believe that is a joke. I am glad i live in a state where no such charges would ever hold up in a court of law. I hope they change their mind, being as he was breaking no laws.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by blackmarine View Post
    SNIP So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!
    Of course. And little midwest churches that protest gays at military funerals should be jailed indefinitely without habeas corpus. [/sarcasm]

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Aphosian said property owners have every right to ask someone to leave, especially if that property is a business.

    Property owner rights vs OCers rights comes up from time to time. This quote above reminded me of something I read earlier today. Micheal Badnarik, libertarian, quoted John Adams:

    “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
    sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice
    to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

    It was linked in another thread. Sorry, I cannot remember which. But here is a link to the chapter of the Badnarik book where he quotes Adams:
    http://www.constitutionpreservation....hapter_two.pdf


  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    In this specific incident the "property owners" had nothing to do with it. I don't believe they were even advised that this was occurring on their parking lot UNTIL they may have read about it in the local paper.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    H ehas the right to carry the firearms the way he did. The folks that called in have no right NOT to be alarmed. Would I do something like this? Probably not.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Couple of points from the article...

    "OREM -- A man who frightened shoppers at the University Mall in Orem by carrying guns in the open..."

    How does that "frighten shoppers?" What sort of foreign ignoramuses are these sort of shoppers who were frightened here in the United States of America, home to the Second Amendment and others? Were they British shoppers? Perhaps members of the Australian parliament...

    "The man was wearing an unloaded assault rifle..."

    Not too bright. Get a case.

    ""When you find out [the guns are] unloaded and he's just carrying them out in the open and they're not concealed, there's not much we can do," said Sgt. Craig Martinez, Orem Police Department."

    I admire their professionalism. Good for them for not jumping through someone else's backside.

    "Still, mall management was upset with the man..."

    Oh, boo hoo! Waaaahhh!!!! Grow a brain. This is America. Don't like it? Please feel free to leave!

    "Orem police have turned the case over to the city prosecutor for a possible charge of disorderly conduct."

    Why in the world would they do that? I take back my comment about their professionlism.

    "Officers say that's because the man's actions caused a disturbance to many people..."

    Sounds to me like those "many people" need a civics lesson. Slap them with disorderly conduct for freaking out and causing such a ruckus.

    ""Aphosian said. "I think people that are carrying the firearms probably, truth be told, expect to be stopped or questioned.""

    Actually, I'd rather be treated just like any other law-abiding citizen. What a ridiculously moronic statement, Mr. Aphosian.

    "At the same time, he said, gun ownership rights should be respected."

    Oh. I feel so much better, now. Thanks.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Jonathon Norris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    196

    On March 9th this year,..

    I was found guilty in Municipal Court here in Birmingham, Alabama of Disorderly Conduct for a similar situation. I was playing chess at the time of my arrest, on July 4th of last year of all days.

    We are appealing to Circuit Court, but my sentencing was set for July of this year, to make me wait as long as possible.

    Over $1000 worth of my firearms were stolen from my person and vehicle, which are still held in police lockup.

    My Alabama CPL has been revoked for over 8 months, rendering me unable to transport a handgun in my vehicle, so I can only OC and then only anywhere I can walk.

    Major lawsuits are being prepared.
    A wayfarer should not walk unarmed,
    But have his weapons to hand:
    He knows not when he may need a spear,
    Or what menace meet on the road.

    - Odin
    The Havamal

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    There is a thread where you can help defray Jonathon's legal fees. It is in the best interest of all of us that he win his case. If this injustice is allowed to stand, other prosecutors will be emboldened to use DC to harass folks for simple OC that is unaccompanied by any other acts that are traditionally thought of as disorderly.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Norris View Post
    I was found guilty in Municipal Court here in Birmingham, Alabama of Disorderly Conduct for a similar situation. I was playing chess at the time of my arrest, on July 4th of last year of all days.
    guitly by a jury or bench trial?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by DKSuddeth View Post
    guitly by a jury or bench trial?
    Per the other thread it was by the judge. He's fighting now for a jury trial.

    For the OP, that's retarded that he's being charged with disorderly conduct. Granted I likely would have contacted the authorities or simply asked the person myself, but that's because carrying something like that is so out of the normal. I would rather have the cops talk with the person and determine that there's nothing wrong than later find out that the person was on his way to commit a crime.

    Now if carrying of rifles in places like malls was more common I wouldn't think about it (like seeing people in hunting garb with guns), but that is just too out of the norm to not at least make sure that something wasn't amiss.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 03-15-2011 at 07:55 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •