Utah Valley University threatens open carrying student with arrest - state agenices back student!

[MajorNickmo]

imported post

I was never asked to leave campus, in fact, they wouldn't let me go anywhere if I didn't conceal the gun...

The school has effectively doubled the number of officers patrolling the school and they have orders to arrest anyone OCing. This lit a fire under me today...

So, I've contacted the NRA Defense Fund, Alliance Defense Fund and FIRE. I need legal counsel and fast, but I don't have the funds to fight this craziness, I'M A COLLEGE STUDENT haha

 

[Garp]

imported post

If I see any tonight im asking them about if it is legal or not, and taping.

 

[MajorNickmo]

imported post

Take a copy of the Utah gun laws with you...
Not that it does any good to know the laws...:?

http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/shared/gun_law_pdf.pdf

 

[ixtow]

imported post

MajorNickmo wrote:

I was never asked to leave campus, in fact, they wouldn't let me go anywhere if I didn't conceal the gun...

The school has effectively doubled the number of officers patrolling the school and they have orders to arrest anyone OCing. This lit a fire under me today...

So, I've contacted the NRA Defense Fund, Alliance Defense Fund and FIRE. I need legal counsel and fast, but I don't have the funds to fight this craziness, I'M A COLLEGE STUDENT haha

It could be risky, but you may consider letting them arrest you. An educated lawyer will take it on contingency.

See if you can find such a lawyer in advance. Let them press this for a cut of the winnings. ;-)

 

[Mike]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

It could be risky, but you may consider letting them arrest you. An educated lawyer will take it on contingency.

See if you can find such a lawyer in advance. Let them press this for a cut of the winnings. ;-)

Huh? Sorry, this makes no sense. Why would anyone let the government control the litigation? Winnings? Give me a break.

 

[Garp]

imported post

I recommend giving Tyler a cal 801-255-5555. They seemed very eager when I called them, for the criminal side of it. I bet the first person that signs with them gets a hell of a deal.

 

[Garp]

imported post

I trolled around the campus food court, bookstore, hall of flags and the area by the lab leading to the LA wing, 45 minutes, didn't see one officer. I did have all of the laws printed out, and was ready to ask them on camera if they were ordered to arrest any open carriers, and how that could be legal with the printed out laws I had handy.



I hope the next thing I hear from Major is that he has representation. ;-)

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

It could be risky, but you may consider letting them arrest you. An educated lawyer will take it on contingency.

See if you can find such a lawyer in advance. Let them press this for a cut of the winnings. ;-)

Huh? Sorry, this makes no sense. Why would anyone let the government control the litigation? Winnings? Give me a break.

You act like it hasn't been done before, right here... And you never encouraged it...

You must have been exposed to Helmke for too long....

 

[Mike]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

It could be risky, but you may consider letting them arrest you. An educated lawyer will take it on contingency.

See if you can find such a lawyer in advance. Let them press this for a cut of the winnings. ;-)

Huh? Sorry, this makes no sense. Why would anyone let the government control the litigation? Winnings? Give me a break.

You act like it hasn't been done before, right here... And you never encouraged it...

You must have been exposed to Helmke for too long....

You misunderstand - never try to get arrested - this cedes control of the litigation to the government. A civil action is the reverse - Plaintiff controls the litigation.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

It could be risky, but you may consider letting them arrest you. An educated lawyer will take it on contingency.

See if you can find such a lawyer in advance. Let them press this for a cut of the winnings. ;-)

Huh? Sorry, this makes no sense. Why would anyone let the government control the litigation? Winnings? Give me a break.

You act like it hasn't been done before, right here... And you never encouraged it...

You must have been exposed to Helmke for too long....

You misunderstand - never try to get arrested - this cedes control of the litigation to the government. A civil action is the reverse - Plaintiff controls the litigation.

I wasn't suggesting he TRY to get arrested. But when a cop says "I could arrest you for that," why not call him on it? If he is willing to perform a false arrest, why is he just talking about it instead of doing it?

I won't "try" to get arrested, nor did I suggest it. I suggested that if they are out in force to arrest people without cause, simply allow them to cross that line.

 

[Garp]

imported post

You also need to keep something in mind, Lawyers don't take criminal cases on contingency. There's no money to be made in a criminal case, just not going to jail. There's no money if you beat the rap. There's two completely different aspects to something like this: The criminal rap, and the civil lawsuit afterwards.

The civil lawsuit is where the settlement (hopefully) is made. Getting a criminal attorney is no big deal (as far as getting n attorney goes), any reputable local criminal lawyer with experience in the gun area would likely do. For the criminal case, if it's actually a gun charge, it would appear cut and dried which is why a criminal lawyer might like to be the first to get in on this for a reduced rate, to get the publicity.

According to my lawyer, getting a civil lawyer or law agency (these are the groups like FIRE, ACLU, etc.) on your side will either require a criminal arrest being made, or a test case created by getting arrested on purpose (usually with their lawyer standing there, cameras, etc.).

 

[LovesHisXD45]

imported post

rpyne wrote:

ixtow wrote:

JoeSparky wrote:

rpyne wrote:

The one potential caveat is found in Utah Code 76-9-106. This is the violation that the UVU Police Chief threatened in his email response.

76-9-106. Disrupting the operation of a school.
(1) A person is guilty of disrupting the operation of a school if the person, after being asked to leave by a school official, remains on school property for the purpose of encouraging or creating an unreasonable and substantial disruption or risk of disruption of a class, activity, program, or other function of a public or private school.
(2) For purposes of this section, "school property" includes property being used by a public or private school for a school function.
(3) Disrupting the operation of a school is a class B misdemeanor.

In light of the other laws on the books and the court decisions over the last ten years, I doubt that a court would find carrying a firearm without other threatening conduct a violation, but it has not been tested.

In my mind the statute quoted is the School's version of a generic Disorderly Conduct statute and as such won't stand if applied to someone doing nothing else but having an openly carried firearm in a holster on his person!

Also as this is written in would apply on any property that the school happened to have a field trip to.... FOR A SCHOOL FUNCTION!

Also, he hasn't disrupted anything... Plenty of students have told him they like it... I don't see any grounds for it.

Like I said, I doubt it would hold up in court, but according to Chief Brewer, it will get you cited or arrested and your firearm confiscated while you take the time and spend the money to fight it out.

According to title 77-7-17, the cop must return your gun to you lawfully possessed or arrest you. If they take your gun and let you free, even if they charge you with something, then they are in violation of statute and will get their arse fried in court.

 

[DanM]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

DanM wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

Follow through to the youtube of it, the guy is getting some pretty negative comments posted against him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjaQJs8eoMk

I don't have an exactly complimentary comment for this guy either:

This guycame off asvery uncertain andnot assertive on hisrights. Heknelt downat the threat of being charged with a bogus charge.

Rule #1: DO NOT OPEN CARRYUNLESS YOU INTEND TO ASSERT YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO! REALIZE THAT THE POLICE MAY CHARGE YOU WITH ANYTHING, SO DO NOT OPEN CARRY UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO STAND UP, TAKE A BOGUS CHARGE, AND FIGHT IT!

This guy should have NEVER open carried at the university. He's weak and let the police punk him. Do us all a favor, guy. Do not open carry ever again unless you intend to stand fast to your right to do so and be willing to take a bogus charge and fight it.

If you are unsure aboutwhether or not you will stand fast to asserting your open carry rights, DO NOT OPEN CARRY!

Just a little bit stronger than I would state it :? and much more so than many (Mike & John included) have advocated/recommended. :exclaim:

The often suggested response is to not fight your battles on the street, but to document everything and to take appropriate action afterward.

Not everybody is willing nor is it necessarily advisable to risking arrest and then have to fight to protect their freedom including RKBA. It is better to fight from a position of strength and some safety rather than have an open field skirmish. ymmv

Is there a time and place to stand up and be counted? Definitely, but don't see this as having missed some great opportunity.

Yata hey

Ok, I see the point, echoed by you and Mike, about retaining control of litigation by avoiding arrest, documenting everything, and becoming plaintiff incivil rights violationsuit. I amend what I said above about taking a bogus charge. I think you and Mike make a compelling point about where and how to pick one's battles.

I still am very troubled about the guy's appearance of being nearly completely lacking inassertiveness and confidence. Instead of talking to the cops for so long, all the while sounding very wishy-washy, he could have kept it short, been assertive, and said something like, "Officer Smith, I knowmy rights, and you are violating them. I am only complying under duress and threat of arrest or citation from you, Officer Smith."

In addition to retaining the air of assertiveness of rights and confidence that are important to what bystanders see about open carry, I'm sure it might help one's future lawsuitto document that statement and any officer response to it.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

DanM wrote:

Ok, I see the point, echoed by you and Mike, about retaining control of litigation by avoiding arrest, documenting everything, and becoming plaintiff incivil rights violationsuit. I amend what I said above about taking a bogus charge. I think you and Mike make a compelling point about where and how to pick one's battles.

I still am very troubled about the guy's appearance of being nearly completely lacking inassertiveness and confidence. Instead of talking to the cops for so long, all the while sounding very wishy-washy, he could have kept it short, been assertive, and said something like, "Officer Smith, I knowmy rights, and you are violating them. I am only complying under duress and threat of arrest or citation from you, Officer Smith."

In addition to retaining the air of assertiveness of rights and confidence that are important to what bystanders see about open carry, I'm sure it might help one's future lawsuitto document that statement and any officer response to it.

That and I do NOT like jail food - blaaah!

Yata hey

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I'm still unclear how you can have a civil suit for an even that never happened.

If there is no false detainment/arrest, there can't be a civil suit for it.

IF these "officers' are threatening such to intimidate, either call their bluff, or let them arrest you. If you don't take that step, then nothing at all can happen.

What am I missing? One of you lawyer types explain it to me. How can he have a suit for False Arrest/Detainment, if such never happens to him because he complies with their intimidation?

 

[Mike]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I'm still unclear how you can have a civil suit for an even that never happened.

If there is no false detainment/arrest, there can't be a civil suit for it.

IF these "officers' are threatening such to intimidate, either call their bluff, or let them arrest you. If you don't take that step, then nothing at all can happen.

What am I missing? One of you lawyer types explain it to me. How can he have a suit for False Arrest/Detainment, if such never happens to him because he complies with their intimidation?

It appears he was seized; it appears he was threatened with arrest or other very draconian action; hence he may have standing to sue for declarative and injunctive relief, and possibly some damages; atty fee shifting in a 1983 action or utah state analog statue may be available and the man should seek out, possibly thru the Utah bar association, a Utah barred lawyer familiar with these intracasies in that particular neck of the woods.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'm still unclear how you can have a civil suit for an even that never happened.

If there is no false detainment/arrest, there can't be a civil suit for it.

IF these "officers' are threatening such to intimidate, either call their bluff, or let them arrest you. If you don't take that step, then nothing at all can happen.

What am I missing? One of you lawyer types explain it to me. How can he have a suit for False Arrest/Detainment, if such never happens to him because he complies with their intimidation?

It appears he was seized; it appears he was threatened with arrest or other very draconian action; hence he may have standing to sue for declarative and injunctive relief, and possibly some damages; atty fee shifting in a 1983 action or utah state analog statue may be available and the man should seek out, possibly thru the Utah bar association, a Utah barred lawyer familiar with these intracasies in that particular neck of the woods.

I have never seen a case like that fly unless there were bracelets or seizure of property involved.

Sure, he has standing, and we all know it. But Judges tend to say 'whatever' to the detainment issue unless you actually get cuffed. I've never seen an example to the contrary. Please show me.

 

[DanM]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'm still unclear how you can have a civil suit for an even that never happened.

If there is no false detainment/arrest, there can't be a civil suit for it.

It appears he was seized; it appears he was threatened with arrest or other very draconian action; hence he may have standing to sue for declarative and injunctive relief, and possibly some damages; atty fee shifting in a 1983 action or utah state analog statue may be available and the man should seek out, possibly thru the Utah bar association, a Utah barred lawyer familiar with these intracasies in that particular neck of the woods.

I have never seen a case like that fly unless there were bracelets or seizure of property involved.

Sure, he has standing, and we all know it. But Judges tend to say 'whatever' to the detainment issue unless you actually get cuffed. I've never seen an example to the contrary. Please show me.

Illegal detainment (with or without cuffs) is illegal. I don't know how pervasive it is thatjudgessay "whatever" to that, but those that do are legally wrong in addition to beingethically wrong. I believe a judge is engaged in misconduct if they say "whatever" to an allegedvictim of a crime before their day in court to prove or not a crime against them. Sounds like withholding ofdue process to me.

At any rate, civil suits aren't the only route for "cuffless" illegal detentions. Go to the FBI for a "Color of Law" investigation:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive." [Bold and large size added for emphasis.]

 

[ixtow]

imported post

DanM wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'm still unclear how you can have a civil suit for an even that never happened.

If there is no false detainment/arrest, there can't be a civil suit for it.

It appears he was seized; it appears he was threatened with arrest or other very draconian action; hence he may have standing to sue for declarative and injunctive relief, and possibly some damages; atty fee shifting in a 1983 action or utah state analog statue may be available and the man should seek out, possibly thru the Utah bar association, a Utah barred lawyer familiar with these intracasies in that particular neck of the woods.

I have never seen a case like that fly unless there were bracelets or seizure of property involved.

Sure, he has standing, and we all know it. But Judges tend to say 'whatever' to the detainment issue unless you actually get cuffed. I've never seen an example to the contrary. Please show me.

Illegal detainment (with or without cuffs) is illegal. I don't know how pervasive it is thatjudgessay "whatever" to that, but those that do are legally wrong in addition to beingethically wrong. I believe a judge is engaged in misconduct if they say "whatever" to an allegedvictim of a crime before their day in court to prove or not a crime against them. Sounds like withholding ofdue process to me.

At any rate, civil suits aren't the only route for "cuffless" illegal detentions. Go to the FBI for a "Color of Law" investigation:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive." [Bold and large size added for emphasis.]

I'm aware, and I agree. I'm just not aware of any example of the law ever being obeyed in this matter. I'd love to see it, because I never have. I'd like to shake the hand of the judge that actually obeys this. I've never seen one.

 

[BB62]

imported post

ixtow wrote: [/b]I'm aware, and I agree. I'm just not aware of any example of the law ever being obeyed in this matter. I'd love to see it, because I never have. I'd like to shake the hand of the judge that actually obeys this. I've never seen one.[/quote]I tend to agree, but what about Danbus' latest incident? Was he arrested?