Skip to comments.Open carry is not the same as disorderly conduct(UT)
Posted on 02/29/2012 7:10:28 AM PST by marktwain
OPINION Utahs lack of restrictive gun laws is one reason the state generally receives high marks in terms of personal freedoms. In 1995 lawmakers liberalized Utahs laws regarding concealed weapon permits and opponents of concealed carry made predictions of blood in the streets, shootouts over parking spaces and police in constant fear for their lives. Not surprisingly, these grave expectations turned out to be false on every count.
Concealed carry permit holders have proven themselves to be among the most law-abiding members of society with only the tiniest fraction of permits being revoked in the past 17 years. Many people who opt to openly carry a personal firearm have chosen not to get a concealed carry permit but still take responsibility for their personal defense. State law dictates that an openly carried firearm must be two actions away from firing unless the individual has a concealed carry permit; in which case it may be carried fully loaded. Of course, secured areas such as courthouses, jails, and airports are still off limits.
Now the legislature is considering a bill clarifying and affirming the right of law-abiding citizens to openly carry a firearm without undue harassment by law enforcement. Representative Paul Rays HB49 would ensure that someone openly carrying a firearm while simply going about their business could not be charged by police with disorderly conduct.
Some municipalities in the state have used the disorderly conduct charge as a kind of catchall offense to discourage individuals whove chosen to exercise their right to bear arms by openly carrying a firearm. The problem here is that a single phone call from some well-intentioned busybody who doesnt like guns can result in officers being sent to investigate. Representative Rays bill would ensure that, absent any elements of crime, no one could be cited for disorderly conduct as some sort of political statement.
Of course, not everyone agrees and the measure is inspiring dizzying new heights of fear-mongering language among the bills opponents.
A major Salt Lake newspaper has run back to back editorial pieces invoking how the sight of a firearm in the possession of a mere citizen causes fear, if not panic and would soon be terrifying the bejesus out of everyone. At least they didnt have to stoop to hyperbole to make their case.
But the most astonishing language in opposition to the measure comes from Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank who stated that the purpose of open carry of a firearm is the intimidation factor. In law enforcement, thats the message you send.
Thats a far cry from the idea that police exist to serve and protect the public. Or are we to assume intimidation is somehow a respectable quality so long as its source is a member of the states punitive priesthood?
Distrust of the general public seems to be a common theme among those who quail at the thought of firearms in the control of someone who isnt an agent of the state. But the right of self-defense extends to all and a police officers life is not more valuable than the lives of those citizens whom he serves. Under a just government, where all are equal before the law, his life is worth precisely the same as his fellow citizens. Therefore, they deserve the ability to protect their lives with the best tools available. To this end, the state cannot be allowed to claim a monopoly on the use of defensive force to protect innocent life and property.
There is nothing inherently threatening or alarming about a citizen openly carrying a firearm, except perhaps to those whose controlling natures are offended by such things. Generations of otherwise reasonable people have been conditioned to believe that only the state can be trusted with firearms. To them, anything thats not under the direct control of the state is, by definition, out of control. This is the classic definition of statism.
There is another thing to consider regarding open carry. Concealed carry allows an individual to move through society without attracting undue attention. Avoiding drawing the attention of your fellow citizens, opportunistic criminals, or government agents, is a desirable thing in our increasingly hypervigilant, threat-oriented society.
No it is not, but “dancing around like a Kansas City faggot” just because one happens to SEE a person open carrying should be...
Although I chose to CC, I understand the OC folks. I was in a local fast food place last week when a young man and his wife/GF came in. He was OC and no one paid the least bit of attention to him. They ordered, went to a booth and ate and left. His handgun did not leap out and shoot anyone while he was there, not did it do so while they walked to their car and I did not see/hear him shoot anyone over a parking spot on the way in. The press really is more liberal than the average joe on the street realizes.
Trial by jury = disorderly conduct.
Women voting = disorderly conduct.
Emancipated blacks = disorderly conduct.
The kind of people who are likely to get a permit are the same kind of people who are likely to obey the law.
With that one statement, Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank has proven himself wholly unqualified to be involved in law enforcement in any capacity whatsoever, except as a potential future criminal defendant.
That nails it.
A cop / prosecutor who charges someone with disorderly conduct for open carry should be sued for civil rights violations.
“Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank who stated that the purpose of open carry of a firearm is the intimidation factor. In law enforcement, thats the message you send. “
Chris Burbank sounds like a real fascist pig.