--snipped--
The article raises a good point. The tactic is dumb. If you want like minds to rah-rah you, the tactic will be successful. If you want to be effective in expanding re-acceptance of the presence of guns and in expanding the Right to its correct proportions, then the tactic will fail. Dumb. But some folks post here like that. They don't care whether outsiders reading this site will be swayed. They just like getting their +1s.
This thread should relay a similar message as the Black Panther thread with the bad title. Don't thank these guys. They are hurting the cause! For different motivations, but the outcome is similar.
Dumb.
LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry. Exception: This rule does NOT apply to discussions about long gun carry in jurisdictions which ban handgun carry but not long gun carry and thus require long gun carry as a matter of public policy.
A valid point can be made that Texas does not allow handgun OC, therefore long gun OC is the remaining means to which OC may be expressed. This is a position which the site owners of OCDO have endorsed.
Hooray !
The end result is that when we really need long guns in public—say, during a riot, mob, or some other failure of civility—there will be laws against it that the authorities can use to disarm us.
Tell me again… why should we support tactics that lead to our rights being eroded, instead of expanded?
Look, laws and rules trying to limit our rights will happen no matter what the catalyst is ... so lets start beating 'em down now.
Are you quoting someone or are those your words/thoughts? Can't tell where one ends and the other begins.
Dave, are you going to discuss this one with us?
Was the carry of the long gun legal? The article makes it sound as though only licensed CC (I assume of a handgun) would have been legal when there was no sign.
The carrier owned a shop in the mall. Was he aware of mall policy despite the lack of a sign? Are there any legal ramifications as a lessee in the mall to violating what we can probably assume is a policy written into his lease? Would the fact of the policy being in his lease (or incorporated by reference) carry the legal weight of the sign?
The article raises a good point. The tactic is dumb. If you want like minds to rah-rah you, the tactic will be successful. If you want to be effective in expanding re-acceptance of the presence of guns and in expanding the Right to its correct proportions, then the tactic will fail. Dumb. But some folks post here like that. They don't care whether outsiders reading this site will be swayed. They just like getting their +1s.
This thread should relay a similar message as the Black Panther thread with the bad title. Don't thank these guys. They are hurting the cause! For different motivations, but the outcome is similar.
Dumb.
DOC means that the cops, and the PA are enforcing a law because some folks got scared. If anyone is scared of you you are engaged in DOC......at least in that jurisdiction. If the cops are smart, and they likely are not, at this point, because they are being dragged into a legal battle by the PA, for a citizen following the law.
Those cops need to tell the PA that he has this one wrong because all they did at that time was "steal" the firearm and not arrest or charge the "perp."
The facts and time line will make for a very interesting legal show.
No. If had wanted to relate what I thought the PA thinks, I would have stated that. I comment on what the PA did. And the story seems to state that the DOC was a result of the citizens lawful act. I comment on what the police did, steal a citiznes property, without just cause, and then relate to the citizen, as you state, later, that the weapon is being held pending a investigation. The PA is dragging the cops into a case where the cops likely could not charge the citizen with DOC, they knew this or they would have arrested him right then and there.<snip> I assume that you mean that the PA thinks that anyone being scared enables a DC charge in his jurisdiction, even though that isn't the case... Right?
No, again. The prosecutor is clearly stating that folks "running scared" is grounds for a DOC charge. The weapons component of the law is now made irrelevant if your two conditions are all that is needed to meet the burden in the statute.I noticed you said something about no arrest or charge. I assume this article is one of the first to report the incident and that it hasn't been updated. After his rifle was stolen, the man went to the police station to retrieve it. He was told that it was being held as evidence in an investigation, or something, and so he left. Later (not to imply that it was the same day) he found out that charges were filled and that a warrant was issued for his arrest. He then went back to the police station for processing.
Now, back to DC. Let's just quote it, for the hell of it.
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
....
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
Now, the prosecutors seem to think that someone being alarmed makes someone carrying a firearm in violation of this section. This, however, is not the case. As you may note, you are in violation if you carry in a manner calculated to cause alarm. This means that both of the following statements are true. Someone may be alarmed, and you not be in violation. You may be in violation, even if nobody is alarmed.
Next post I will try to include some case law regarding this display of weapons section of DC.
Hope this helps keep the issues clear.
Non sequitur. A single citizen who may or may not have been in compliance with mall policy, yet in compliance with state law, is charged with DOC, and thus normalization of OC (LGs in this case) is not occurring in all normal places, a mall in this case. The mall owners need to be "normalized", not the cops. I think that the cops in Texas "get it" and approach each "event" based on the situation before them at that time, if your contentions have merit. I believe they do. The mall dude, he is getting screwed six ways from Sunday and the cops, I think, would tend to agree, else they would have arrested him and not just steal his weapon.Edit: The article states that normalization is not being accomplished. In Texas we have evidence to the contrary. Recently a group of OCers walked for, what, over 6 hours in downtown Austin and the police either ignored them or approached smiling and pleasant. Citizens were openly curious about the group and mission. Many citizens asked to have pictures taken with the OCers. No, nobody was spotted running for their lives. Sorry. Bottom line: progress is being made by the OC groups in Texas, and this is undeniable. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that acceptance of OC of long guns is being increasingly accepted by both common LACs and LEOs.
You make my point for me. The PA, via the cops, must prove the intent of the citizen and the cops not arresting him after complaints indicates to me that the PA will not countenance any OCing in his jurisdiction where other folks are claiming they are scared of the gun.Edit again: Also note "knowingly and intentionally"
I really don't understand how a citizen "not in violation" being charged under the law. What has a weapon got to do with both of your "true" statements? The weapon component is inserted into the law for the simple fact that a LAC, following the law, as the mall dude was it seems, can be arrested/charged with DOC for simply OCing his rifle and nothing more. That provision of the law needs to be removed.This means that both of the following statements are true. Someone may be alarmed, and you not be in violation. You may be in violation, even if nobody is alarmed.
No weapons component, and peace disturbance is analogous to disorderly conduct.SECTION 210.210: PEACE DISTURBANCE - A person commits the offense of peace disturbance if:
1. He/she unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by:
a. Loud noise;
b. Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient;
c. Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out;
d. Fighting; or
e. Creating a noxious and offensive odor.
2. He/she is in a public place or on private property of another without consent and purposely causes inconvenience to another person or persons by unreasonably and physically obstructing:
a. Vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
b. The free ingress or egress to or from a public or private place.
Again, no weapons component, weapons are addressed in the unlawful use of weapons.Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties. RSMo 571.030.1 A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or...
Peace Disturbance--penalties. RSMo 574.010. 1. A person commits the crime of peace disturbance if:
(1) He unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by:
(a) Loud noise; or
(b) Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient; or
(c) Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out; or
(d) Fighting; or
(e) Creating a noxious and offensive odor;
(2) He is in a public place or on private property of another without consent and purposely causes inconvenience to another person or persons by unreasonably and physically obstructing:
(a) Vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
(b) The free ingress or egress to or from a public or private place.
I really don't understand how a citizen "not in violation" being charged under the law.
I thought calculated or intent to cause alarm was on the part of the carrier?
..."Although the State maintains the fact that someone called the police is sufficient to show the gun was displayed in a way calculated to cause alarm, we cannot agree" http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10595185369456678496&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
And then the next sentence.The mere fact that the police were called is not evidence of the way in which the gun was displayed.
The final logical conclusion.Nor is the mere fact that a person saw a gun "displayed" on a balcony evidence that the balcony was in a public place.
About the only thing the cited case and the mall dude's situation have in common, in my view, is the disorderly conduct charge. The facts of the current case, the mall dude, are clearly evident, a photo shows the manner in which the gun was carried. The cops ride on the scared caller(s) report as the only justification to support a disorderly conduct charge. The PA hitched his wagon on that call also.Without some evidence describing the balcony or the manner in which the gun was displayed, we cannot conclude there were any facts or circumstances showing the gun was displayed in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.