• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man well within his rights, might be arrested OCing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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
Click to expand...
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;
Click to expand...
....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:
B

bikemutt

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Renton, WA
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:
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
Lawful is,,

bikemutt said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
blackmarine

blackmarine

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Easton, WA
bikemutt said:
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.
Click to expand...

So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!

That's nonsense.


Duke
 
N605TW

N605TW

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
118
Location
Columbus, Ohio
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
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
bikemutt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
protect our rights

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
bikemutt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
protect our rights

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
N605TW said:
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
Click to expand...

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)
 
B

bikemutt

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Renton, WA
blackmarine said:
So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!

That's nonsense.


Duke
Click to expand...

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 :D
 
protect our rights

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
bikemutt said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

actually depending on what the underwear was, it may NOT be legal. Indecent exposure, ever heard of that?:D
 
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 
F

flb_78

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
544
Location
Gravel Switch, KY
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.
Click to expand...

I first wanted to post, "Did Kwik move to Utah?" :D
 
K

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Aphosian said property owners have every right to ask someone to leave, especially if that property is a business.
Click to expand...

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.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf
 
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top