since9
Campaign Veteran
Further Concerns on Colorado's "Disorderly Conduct" laws. Menacing, as well.
Ok, this is the state-specific nuts and bolts of the more nation-wide thread.
Again, this grew out of concerns raised by a conversation earlier this afternoon (well, Friday) with a law enforcement officer in the Colorado Springs Police Department. The officer made several comments, a couple of which I found misguided:
1. He indicated that an OCer could be charged with "disorderly conduct." When pressed, he stated that whether or not one was charged would be dependent upon the "totality of the circumstances."
2. He indicated the amount of "alarm" one created would be considered a factor.
3. While he never mentioned "menacing," I did stumble across several references to "menacing" while searching for state-specific information on "disorderly conduct."
Research for this issue begins with C.R.S. 18-9-106 - Disorderly Conduct.
Adjunct to this is a comment made by a former LEO approximately 18 months ago involving the same issue. That individual stated that I should CC so that I don't risk being charged with "disorderly conduct." My train of thought is "How can the peaceable carry of a legal firearm by a law-abiding citizen ever be misconstrued as "alarming" much less "disorderly conduct?"
In resolving this, I'd like to explore the concept of what it means to be "alarming." Is it simply what's subjectively perceived by an individual? If so, I could easily argue that anyone countering my 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is "alarming" to me, particularly after having spent the last 20 years serving my country in the United States Military under a pre-requisite oath of office requiring allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, including the 2nd.
Or are there more objective criteria, those involving "reasonable man" tests? In other words, the introduction of a ladybug to a crowd by opening one's hand may very well be alarming to one individual in the crowd. However, if that individual wigs out, is the 9-yr-old who was showing off the ladybug guilty of "alarming" the other and therefore culpable of disorderly conduct? Of course not! If anything, the individual who flips out is reacting abnormally with respect to the population at large. They're the one who needs help. If you really want to charge someone with disorderly conduct, charge them. The kid is just being a kid.
Similarly, if I OC at, say, IHOP for 18 months, and the most "disturbed" reaction by any employee or restaurant patron is nothing more than a second glance, that pretty much sets the tone, the societal norm, with respect to what should be used as a basis for the reasonable/rational man test.
Next, imagine an individual who spots me returning to my table after using the restroom, and calls 911. The cops arrive, the individual states they were "alarmed" at the sight of my firearm, and asks that charges be filed. Upon learning I have a concealed carry permit, the police "advise" me to put the firearm in my bag. I refuse, stating that OC is my right under Colorado State Law. In response, they charge me with "disorderly conduct" as per what the local LEO told me this afternoon.
Really???
I don't think so! Oh, it may come down the pike this way, but I don't think it would ever fly in the courts.
Let's take a detailed look at the law:
Nothing an IHOP breakfast would cause so far.
Again, if someone wigs out, I'd argue they're the ones breaching the peace. Consider a mouse running across the floor of the restaurant. Cause for alarm? Not really, but if someone jumps up and starts screaming about it, they, not the mouse, bears the predominant responsibility for breaching the peace.
Well, this is good news, as this was one of the measures to which I objected. I suspect it was deleted because the courts found it unconstitutional.
Nope, not yet...
Nope, not yet...
Nope, not yet...
Bingo! However, the key part of this is "in a manner calculated to alarm." It is not, as the police officer insinuated, something which alarms another. They have to prove that by OCing in IHOP, I'd calculated OCing to cause alarm.
That's intent. If I OC everywhere I go, all without intent to cause alarm, it would be devilishly difficult for anyone to prove my intentions were to cause alarm.
Enough for now. Next up, "menacing."
Ok, this is the state-specific nuts and bolts of the more nation-wide thread.
Again, this grew out of concerns raised by a conversation earlier this afternoon (well, Friday) with a law enforcement officer in the Colorado Springs Police Department. The officer made several comments, a couple of which I found misguided:
1. He indicated that an OCer could be charged with "disorderly conduct." When pressed, he stated that whether or not one was charged would be dependent upon the "totality of the circumstances."
2. He indicated the amount of "alarm" one created would be considered a factor.
3. While he never mentioned "menacing," I did stumble across several references to "menacing" while searching for state-specific information on "disorderly conduct."
Research for this issue begins with C.R.S. 18-9-106 - Disorderly Conduct.
Adjunct to this is a comment made by a former LEO approximately 18 months ago involving the same issue. That individual stated that I should CC so that I don't risk being charged with "disorderly conduct." My train of thought is "How can the peaceable carry of a legal firearm by a law-abiding citizen ever be misconstrued as "alarming" much less "disorderly conduct?"
In resolving this, I'd like to explore the concept of what it means to be "alarming." Is it simply what's subjectively perceived by an individual? If so, I could easily argue that anyone countering my 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is "alarming" to me, particularly after having spent the last 20 years serving my country in the United States Military under a pre-requisite oath of office requiring allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, including the 2nd.
Or are there more objective criteria, those involving "reasonable man" tests? In other words, the introduction of a ladybug to a crowd by opening one's hand may very well be alarming to one individual in the crowd. However, if that individual wigs out, is the 9-yr-old who was showing off the ladybug guilty of "alarming" the other and therefore culpable of disorderly conduct? Of course not! If anything, the individual who flips out is reacting abnormally with respect to the population at large. They're the one who needs help. If you really want to charge someone with disorderly conduct, charge them. The kid is just being a kid.
Similarly, if I OC at, say, IHOP for 18 months, and the most "disturbed" reaction by any employee or restaurant patron is nothing more than a second glance, that pretty much sets the tone, the societal norm, with respect to what should be used as a basis for the reasonable/rational man test.
Next, imagine an individual who spots me returning to my table after using the restroom, and calls 911. The cops arrive, the individual states they were "alarmed" at the sight of my firearm, and asks that charges be filed. Upon learning I have a concealed carry permit, the police "advise" me to put the firearm in my bag. I refuse, stating that OC is my right under Colorado State Law. In response, they charge me with "disorderly conduct" as per what the local LEO told me this afternoon.
Really???
I don't think so! Oh, it may come down the pike this way, but I don't think it would ever fly in the courts.
Let's take a detailed look at the law:
18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture,
Nothing an IHOP breakfast would cause so far.
...or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
Again, if someone wigs out, I'd argue they're the ones breaching the peace. Consider a mouse running across the floor of the restaurant. Cause for alarm? Not really, but if someone jumps up and starts screaming about it, they, not the mouse, bears the predominant responsibility for breaching the peace.
or (b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 708, § 39, effective July 1, 2000.)
Well, this is good news, as this was one of the measures to which I objected. I suspect it was deleted because the courts found it unconstitutional.
(c) Makes unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy; or
Nope, not yet...
(d) Fights with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or
Nope, not yet...
(e) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting; or
Nope, not yet...
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
Bingo! However, the key part of this is "in a manner calculated to alarm." It is not, as the police officer insinuated, something which alarms another. They have to prove that by OCing in IHOP, I'd calculated OCing to cause alarm.
That's intent. If I OC everywhere I go, all without intent to cause alarm, it would be devilishly difficult for anyone to prove my intentions were to cause alarm.
Enough for now. Next up, "menacing."
Last edited: