Student at UVU harassed for open carry video


PDA






mljdeckard
March 8, 2010, 11:49 PM
There was a story tonight on our local Fox affiliate , a student at Utah Valley University was confronted by campus police for open-carrying on campus. They haven't posted the story on the website yet, but the long and short of it is; he was posting material as president of the campus republican chapter, someone called the campus police for MWAG, they responded. As the conversation became prolonged, he pulled out his iphone and started filming. The news team confirmed with BCI, the student was well within his rights and the state college has no latitude to make gun laws, the state has pre-emption. The police kept trying to insist that the law doesn't ALLOW students to open carry, but the truth is, it doesn't PROHIBIT it. I attended this campus a long time ago, and I had some VERY silly conversations with the campus cops and their notions of what is and is not legal. This isn't even a NEW law and they don't know what it is.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzyYu9dhIY0

This will force clarification to campus cops in their interpretation of the law, but I still don't want to be one of the cases that they learn from.

If you enjoyed reading about "Student at UVU harassed for open carry video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
March 9, 2010, 12:05 AM
Fox 13 didn't post it, but the local NBC affiliate did.

The 'flaw' referred to is the distinction between 'displaying' and 'brandishing'. The legislative fix is currently on the governor's desk.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9943882

ilikepancakes
March 9, 2010, 02:03 AM
Fox 13 didn't post it, but the local NBC affiliate did.

The 'flaw' referred to is the distinction between 'displaying' and 'brandishing'. The legislative fix is currently on the governor's desk.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9943882

Ahaha! The anti's name is Gunn!

cleardiddion
March 9, 2010, 02:03 AM
I think the kid did good.
If I had a friend/kid like that I'd be damned proud of him.

Girodin
March 9, 2010, 02:43 AM
Rights/legalities aside the cop made me lol when he called the kid out by saying if you're really buddies with Shurtleff go ahead and have him give me a call.

Two thoughts I think open carry in places like a college campus is likely to alarm people and does more potential harm by giving people a reason to advocate changing the law than it does good by winning people over.

The flip side is that if you don't use the right, i.e. no one can every open carry at a university to avoid ruffling feathers then that is largely the functional equivalent of having the law changed anyways so what is lost.

Lawsuit? I'm guessing the UVU kid doesn't really want to deal with all the headaches of that.

The U of U already lost a lawsuit trying to enforce school policy in violation of state law. I do think this issue should be pressed to a positive resolution.

esquare
March 9, 2010, 09:30 AM
The student needs to petition the Utah AG for clarification (along with this video and a written description of the event) - and that will be the end of this type of stuff for UVU. He also needs to get more fiends to open carry as well. Good luck with it - it's the people like this that change the world.

Kingofthehill
March 9, 2010, 10:30 AM
unreal.

The guy did very well... im not so sure if i would have gotten away without being charged. Mall cops acting like god. Unreal.

JOe

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 10:43 AM
While I completely support his right to open carry, and realize that he was well within the law, I would simply ask this:

Why? To make a point?

If you're carrying to protect yourself, you clearly have a tactical advantage if you're carrying concealed. As well as it being the more considerate option.

Let's face it. Some people are just freaked out if they see a gun.

It's ignorance. It's silly. Nevertheless, it IS.

Why would you even want to deal with all of that hassle? Conceal and you get what you want with no problems. Open carry and deal with the cops every 15 minutes. I just don't see the logic in it regardless of how right he is.

esquare
March 9, 2010, 11:01 AM
Why? To make a point?

Yep, that's the point of the OC movement. Hey, if people like this don't stand up and do this, the public will never understand that firearms aren't the cause of crime. I mean, if people don't see guns in common use by law abiding citizens, how are they going to get educated about them?

NavyLCDR
March 9, 2010, 11:09 AM
It's ignorance. It's silly. Nevertheless, it IS.

The Brady Campaign says the same thing about concealed carry. I'm glad that you think I am ignorant and silly - that is why I have spent 26 years in military service, to protect your right to come out in public and proclaim how ignorant and silly I am for upholding my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC. One small way that I fulfill that oath every day is by open carrying.

Why would you even want to deal with all of that hassle? Conceal and you get what you want with no problems.

I don't get what I want when I conceal my gun. I don't get deterrence. A concealed firearm is for defense against an attack after that attack has begun. An openly carried firearm is for deterring that attack from beginning.

As well as it being the more considerate option.

Are the anti's considerate of our rights to protect ourselves? Why should I give up the deterrent value of my openly carried firearm to be considerate of their unfounded fears? If they don't like the sight of my gun, then let them go somewhere else - there is nothing inconsiderate about that.

Kingofthehill
March 9, 2010, 11:19 AM
While I completely support his right to open carry, and realize that he was well within the law, I would simply ask this:

Why? To make a point?

If you're carrying to protect yourself, you clearly have a tactical advantage if you're carrying concealed. As well as it being the more considerate option.

Let's face it. Some people are just freaked out if they see a gun.

It's ignorance. It's silly. Nevertheless, it IS.

Why would you even want to deal with all of that hassle? Conceal and you get what you want with no problems. Open carry and deal with the cops every 15 minutes. I just don't see the logic in it regardless of how right he is.

That is only YOUR opinion. IMO open carry is not a disadvantage, some see a gun and think "I'll wait until he leaves" or "not hitting this place"... there is a recent news story where the BG's were waiting untill an OC left before they robbed the place, their scout told them a man with a gun was inside and while waiting the cops saw the car suspiciously waiting.

IMO the public needs to see that a person with a gun doesn't mean CHAOS....

you can have your opinion, and we can have ours... just don't think your better than anyone else because of it.

JOe

Kingofthehill
March 9, 2010, 11:20 AM
Two customers displaying holstered pistols deterred an armed robbery in a Kennesaw Wafflehouse recently.

There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.

Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout's report.

The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.

Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling in to the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.

Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well armed robbery crew.

Matt Brannan is making an Open Records Act request, and there will be an update to this story when more information is available. The case number is 09-133500. There will be updates and follow up articles as more information becomes available.

If you do not want to miss any follow up articles, please click on the Subsribe button under the headline, above.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 11:25 AM
NavyLT,

Whoa, there.......you are taking what I said completely wrong. What I meant was that the fearful attitude towards firearms is ignorant and silly, nevertheless, it is something that we are forced to deal with every day.

As far as the rest of what you said, all very valid points that I had not considered.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 11:31 AM
Wow........ talk about starting a firestorm.

Okay, my apologies. Didn't mean to step on any toes. I certainly don't think I'm better than ANYONE, certainly not anybody in here. Open carry is not an option where I live, and even if it were, given my line of work, I would be causing myself more trouble than it's worth to engage in the practice.

I had forgotten that Kennesaw story, and that certainly makes the more valid argument.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 11:36 AM
IMO the public needs to see that a person with a gun doesn't mean CHAOS....
JOe

I couldn't agree more.



you can have your opinion, and we can have ours... just don't think your better than anyone else because of it.


Not sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?

Kingofthehill
March 9, 2010, 11:36 AM
Wow........ talk about starting a firestorm.

Okay, my apologies. Didn't mean to step on any toes. I certainly don't think I'm better than ANYONE, certainly not anybody in here. Open carry is not an option where I live, and even if it were, given my line of work, I would be causing myself more trouble than it's worth to engage in the practice.

I had forgotten that Kennesaw story, and that certainly makes the more valid argument.

i apologize if i came off like a jerk. Not intended..

It just sounded similar to when my hunting buddy's saw no need for people owning AR style rifles. It just irked me that they had the right of mind to decide what people could have or even had to justify a reason to owning one.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 11:38 AM
Kingofthehill,

No problem. I appreciate that.

silhouette004
March 9, 2010, 11:43 AM
if you don't mind my asking, what is your line of work, which would make open carry such a hassle? (not trying to be combative, just genuinely curious)

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 11:43 AM
For what it's worth, I get into more arguments about RKBA than anything else I know of. I carry 24/7 and think that EVERYONE should. For me, it's about FAR more than just guns. It's about the definition of true liberty and freedom. It's about the historical aspect of just what has happened to disarmed societies. It's about the fact that the founding fathers thought that the RKBA was second ONLY to freedom of speech.

If nothing else, this discussion has put open carry in a light that I hadn't considered previously.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 11:50 AM
I am a musician. I have my own business (recording studio) and I play keyboards in a show.

Big Boy
March 9, 2010, 11:57 AM
I open carry, and have never been hassled. The thing that originally pushed me to do it is that you can't get a CCW in MO till 23, but can start open carrying at 18 if gifted the handgun. I got to buy my first handgun when I turned 21 and like I said, Open Carry was my only option.

Now I would OC or CC without any problem. For me it all depends on what is more comfortable with my clothing. (ie. if I have a coat on, it's concealed on my hip, and there's no point for me to try and tuck my coat behind my gun.) However if I were open carrying and were hassled, I would do the same as the kid. Stand for my right until they attempt to use other laws like disorderly conduct to arrest you. I don't have the time or the money to deal with the court system.

Tommygunn
March 9, 2010, 11:59 AM
........ Ahaha! The anti's name is Gunn!


NOT ME! NOOOO relationship!! I'm Innocent! It ain't me I say! :eek:

:o

NavyLCDR
March 9, 2010, 12:00 PM
CaptainMarko,

Glad to hear you weren't calling us open carriers ignorant and silly! :D Sorry I was a bit over-defensive and took it that way. Glad we could shed some more light as to why we choose to open carry, and glad that you are open-minded enough to see merit in those reasons!

Girodin
March 9, 2010, 12:07 PM
I'd like to see an OC rally happen there. I watched one of the local news reports and it was rather positive pointing out that multiple official agencies in charge of the matter say the young man is within his rights.

The school and the school's police force need to be made to follow the law.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 12:11 PM
However if I were open carrying and were hassled, I would do the same as the kid. Stand for my right until they attempt to use other laws like disorderly conduct to arrest you. I don't have the time or the money to deal with the court system.

That is kind of where I was originally headed with all of this. It seems to me, that when you are standing around, debating the law with an LEO who is not on your side, you've already lost. Your chances of changing their mind are zero when the they've already decided that you're in the wrong, you just don't know it yet.

The kid was smart to record the whole encounter.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 12:15 PM
CaptainMarko,
Glad to hear you weren't calling us open carriers ignorant and silly! :D Sorry I was a bit over-defensive and took it that way. Glad we could shed some more light as to why we choose to open carry, and glad that you are open-minded enough to see merit in those reasons!

Thanks for that, and thanks for your service.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 12:18 PM
Yep, that's the point of the OC movement. Hey, if people like this don't stand up and do this, the public will never understand that firearms aren't the cause of crime. I mean, if people don't see guns in common use by law abiding citizens, how are they going to get educated about them?

I never even thought about that. Good point.

ants
March 9, 2010, 12:19 PM
I completely understood Captain Marko's original post (now edited out).

He's on our side. He was asking pertinent questions among us guys, so we can discuss the matter among ourselves in tolerance and clarity.

THR is about that, being unafraid to look at all sides while openly discussing important matters among ourselves. When we backlash without thinking, we commit the same errors we are trying to prevent: Reaction without considering another's point of view.

Let's keep in mind that we're on the same side, that we must think before reacting, and that we must tolerate all expressions in an open minded manner.

Big Boy
March 9, 2010, 12:20 PM
I've got the state laws concerning firearms and carry printed and in my wallet, so I would have maybe a little tiny, tiny bit more argument than he did. I also would have asked them to call their superiors.

My iphone doesn't have video but I do have the voice recorder icon on the front page so I can get to it quickly. Just be careful recording people. Some states have laws that you have to inform them, or something else, blah, blah, blah.

captainmarko
March 9, 2010, 12:42 PM
FWIW,

I removed the orginal post because it looked like I was going to have to spend the next few days explaining what I DIDN'T mean.

I AM on your side.......

our side........

MY side!

My initial point was this:

At my age, I have VERY little tolerance for stupidity, and even less for people in power who may or may not attempt to use that leverage upon me in a stupid fashion.

After a few minutes of dealing with that, I would have been unable to contain my frustration, and it would have shown.

Not good.

I would have said something to the effect of "You're wrong, and I'll be going about my business, thank you very much," which I'm sure would also have been less than well received.

Again, not good.

Several outcomes follow that scenario, none of which would have gone well for me, even though I would have been in the right. The kid being able to record the whole thing helped his case enormously. Which, again, annoys the crap out of me. I have to record anything like that because otherwise, it's a given that the the officers' word will be taken over mine?!?!? After all, I am one of those gun nuts and you never know what they might be doing.

So, for me, since I lack the personality to deal with a drone like that, flying under the radar is a better option. I was genuinely asking why you would want to deal with that, and I got some fast and very enlightening replies.

Girodin
March 10, 2010, 02:10 AM
So Shurtleff has refused to make a statement that open carry is legal. He says the law can be read both ways and he doesn't want to offer an interpretation (doesn't want to get mistaken for the AG or something).

He also said he had not memory of having talked to the kid about OC.

I would have liked to see the AG take a little stronger action on this. It will have to be something addressed either by the courts or the legislature (next session I'm afraid).

TexasBill
March 10, 2010, 02:33 AM
If you are behaving legally, it doesn't matter if the LEO likes it or not; his job is to enforce the law, not make it up as he goes along. That being said, if he arrests you, he has a lot of ways to make a charge that will stick unless you have documented proof (like the video) that he exceeded his authority.

This kind of thing is all too common. In Texas a few years back, the Legislature changed the laws regarding handguns in automobiles and redefining the old "traveler" defense. The new law basically allows a citizen who meets certain conditions to have a loaded handgun concealed in their vehicle and while going to and from their vehicle to their residence, business or other property under their control (hotel rooms, etc.). Some district attorneys didn't like the new law because it eliminated a lot of opportunities for officers to make arrests so they instructed the agencies in their counties to ignore the new law and continue to enforce the old, much more nebulous, statute. The legislature had to go back and refine the new law so their was no doubt as to the intent and judges knew to toss such cases, leaving the county liable for malicious prosecution, before the DAs got their act together.

griz
March 10, 2010, 10:07 AM
Did anyone else notice that the tile pattern on the floor looked like benchrest grid targets?

Back on topic, has the concept of "if someone is alarmed you're conduct is disorderly" ever been tested in court? I know I've seen unarmed people who alarmed me, but for the life of me I can't imagine them being arrested for it.

Girodin
March 10, 2010, 02:38 PM
That cop is grossly mis-characterizing the disorderly conduct statute, shocking I know.

The statute actually says the following (and UT is a state where textualism in statutory interpretation is pretty popular although you’d have to look at case law to know how these things would be most likely to be interpreted):

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.
Amended by Chapter 20, 1999 General Session

Under the first part of (1)(a) we do not arrive at disorderly conduct because he wasn’t be ordered to move from a public place, he was being told to cover his gun up. Was this young man knowingly creating a hazard? It seems a stretch to assert going about your business with a handgun properly secured in a quality holster is creating a hazard.
Was he creating a physically offensive conditions? Probably not but for the sake of argument let’s say we wrest the interpretation of that clause to include his acts, the statute still requires that the act serve no legitimate purpose. If the young man is legally allowed to OC he has a legitimate purpose.

Moving on to (b) to it seems a stretch he was intending to cause inconvenience, there is a stronger argument for intent to cause annoyance or alarm. He arguably had substantial certainty that OCing a gun on a university campus would do that. There is of course a strong argument that he didn’t. He claims he has been doing it for over a year with no incident. Further if it is legal why would it cause alarm to a reasonable person? Again say we find “intent” (in the legal sense) to cause alarm or annoyance. The statute says it is only disorderly conduct if he and then gives a list of activities. Is this an enumerated list or should be interpret it as illustrative of the types of activity that violate the statute. Either way the young man did not violate it. First he did not engage in any of the enumerated activity. The only one you can make an argument for is threatening behavior, the argument being that having a holstered weapon in plain view is itself threatening behavior. Besides being absurd for common sense reasons, it doesn’t not jive with an inter texualist analysis. The low allows for OC of a loaded gun with a CFP (people do not seriously contend otherwise generally and have never really objected in other contexts but rather contend in the context of a university they suddenly argue the law doesn’t allow it, an untenable position). Further there is a law that clarifies this very point before the governor right now. It makes very plain (although it really was already patent to anyone without an agenda before) the fact that simply open carrying a gun is not brandishing or otherwise threatening.
If we say that the list in not limited to those activities listed but rather illustrative (something common in statutory interpretation and IDK what UT courts have said) I have a hard time finding anything in the young man’s conduct that approximates the activities on the list.

I wish the young man would have been up on the disorderly conduct statute to ask the office what part of it he was violating. They would have been more likely to taze him than give a coherent explanation.

Perhaps, although I’ll need to do some case law research and better flush out all the issues, I’ll email the chief of police down at UVU and ask him exactly what part of the kid’s conduct violated disorderly conduct. Maybe I’ll email Elder Holland’s son who is the president of UVU, I thought that group of people believed in honoring and obeying the law.

I hope someone steps up as a test case and not only gets the law clarified but turns around and sues the school, the police force, the chief, the individual officers, and the president of the school. Maybe they would each rethink thumbing their noses at state law, the legislature, and more importantly the citizens of Utah.

This kind of nonsense is needs to be stood up to.

I would hope to see the political groups like the USSC and possibly the eagle forum mobilize on this and make the voices of the Utah citizenry heard. An email/letter/call campaign ought to be directed at the AG for his inexplicable and disturbing fence sitting. He needs to know UT voters wont support that. Same for embattled governor Herbert. These are the chief executive officials who could change the way UVU police are handling this quickly. State reps should be contacted too. They can put pressure on UVU because they hold the purse strings. UT is desperate to find places to make cuts in their budget, how about at the University generally and the police department specifically. The legislators also need to know that UT wants a bill make this issue so explicit no matter how anti someone is they cannot argue OC is not legal.

I'd also like to see a rally of some sort to keep the spot light on this issue, keep feet to the fire, and to make a statement.

Girodin
March 10, 2010, 02:42 PM
Mostly meaningless quasi poll but hit it anyways.


http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=&nid=399

Uhrmacher
March 10, 2010, 02:43 PM
Yeah it sounded ridiculous when the cop said "if you're annoying or alarming someone you can be arrested for disorderly conduct."
Smart ass answer: "You're annoying me, can I have you arrested for disorderly conduct?"

:neener:

mljdeckard
March 10, 2010, 05:21 PM
I hit the poll, Doug Wright is very pro-gun and on our side.

Girodin
March 10, 2010, 09:33 PM
I hit the poll, Doug Wright is very pro-gun and on our side.

His radio broadcast on this issue sounded very very far from "on our side" if our side is support of open carry on schools.

"I absolutely believe in our second amendment rights BUT I also believe in some commons sense that ought to be infused into these wonderful rights that we have."

He also said that seeing someone open carry would alarm him personally.

He expressed the sentiment that it is insensitive to others to open carry.


How much on "our" side is that?

Listening to his show (I found it online) made me wonder why someone didn't just pull out the freaking statutes and read them, there was disinformation and ignorance on display.

Cokeman
March 10, 2010, 10:43 PM
So he can't exercise his right because the people he is scaring might get the law that protects his right changed? So what? If the police won't let him exercise the right, what's the point of protecting the law that protects the right? "By open carrying, your going to ruin it for people who want to open carry." Dumb! :scrutiny:

Girodin
March 10, 2010, 10:56 PM
So he can't exercise his right because the people he is scaring might get the law that protects his right changed? So what? If the police won't let him exercise the right, what's the point of protecting the law that protects the right? "By open carrying, your going to ruin it for people who want to open carry." Dumb!

Exactly. I agree that it might well get the OC laws changed but so what if the only way to keep them is by not open carrying what have you lost.

twofifty
March 11, 2010, 12:17 AM
Whether or not it is a 'good idea/awareness strategy' to OC on this campus, I did notice that the Police officer and the OCing student both used calm respectful non-antagonizing tones while engaging in their verbal duel.

Too bad the UT-AG will not clarify matters/do his job, as the only other way to get it resolved would be for an OCing student to be arrested on campus. The later would cost time and much money, and has the potential for far-reaching consequences to academic life and future employment.

mljdeckard
March 11, 2010, 12:56 AM
The Utah AG, Mark Shurtleff, will be more than happy to clarify. He has done it before.

The law exempts permit holders from the laws that restrict everyone else from carrying with a round in the chamber. The cop knows it, he's choosing to ignore it. Note, he didn't try to cite or arrest anyone, he was just annoyed that someone made him stand up that day. And NOW, there will be clarifying and re-training.

The law clarifying the difference between open-carrying and brandishing is on the governor's desk right now.

Girodin
March 11, 2010, 02:02 AM
The Utah AG, Mark Shurtleff, will be more than happy to clarify. He has done it before.

Sorry friend but he was far from happy to clarify. Rather he released a statement through his office saying that the law was vague and required clarification from the legislature and distancing himself from this kid.

From the Deseret News:
Days later, as college officials, gun rights advocates and state legislators debate the interpretation of various state gun laws, Shurtleff declined to provide clear guidance.

"He says the law is ambiguous and he continues to encourage the Legislature to clarify it," said spokeswoman Renae Cowley. She added that Shurtleff said he does not recall ever meeting Moyes or thanking him.

I know that he is a traditional ally of guns rights but he is not going to bat on this issue. We need to look at where people are really standing before we give them credit for supporting this issue. Wright didn't (not at all surprisingly to me) and Shurtleff didn't either.

The law clarifying the difference between open-carrying and brandishing is on the governor's desk right now.

It "clarifies the use of force or the threat of force necessary to defend a person against another's imminent use of unlawful force;clarifies when a person may threaten or display a dangerous weapon in self defense;and makes certain technical changes."

The bill does clarify that mere possession of a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is not threatening behavior, that is an important line in light of these silly disorderly conduct threats. It also clarifies when drawing the weapon or informing someone you have a gun is legal.

What is interesting is that the UT legislature already rejected the opportunity to clarify this issue by passing a law that very expressly made OC legal on campuses. That effort was stopped. In fact IIRC an amendment to make it expressly illegal was passed (meaning added to the bill not passed into law) and that put an end to it all. That makes it questionable to me how it will go a second time around. Of course there was no big push from the RKBA community holding reps and senator's feet to the fire the last time around whereas the universities fought it and the media skew was negative. Also, Huntsman was also in office and I imagine they were opposing behind the scenes.

And NOW, there will be clarifying and re-training.


Not based solely off that bill there wont be. It doesn't clarify the issue at dispute here. The school will have to be forced to comply either by a judicial ruling, a express law change that says in no uncertain terms that OC for CFP holder is legal on a state university campus or perhaps a law change followed by a court order. School is, shall we say, sticking to their guns for now.

JoeSlomo
March 11, 2010, 03:42 AM
Sad...


I guess I should call the police and have the local wannabe's arrested for disorderly conduct because they are creating "alarm" by looking like "Gangsta's".

DCR
March 11, 2010, 11:52 AM
I thought Shurtleff had opined a year or two ago that the University of Utah did not have any authority to impose its "no guns" policy and the legislature had pre-empted universities from banning guns, which led to quite a row between the U of U and the state, which the state won. Am I mis-remembering?

Girodin
March 11, 2010, 01:36 PM
Am I mis-remembering?

No, but you are failing to distinguish the differences between the current controversy and the U of U case.

In U of U case the school had a no guns on campus period rule. The state constitution says that only the legislature can promulgate rules for guns, not cities, or other govt entities. The state further had a clear law that allowed carrying of CCWs with enumerated exceptions which did not include schools. Thus the only entity saying that a CFP holder could not carry a concealed weapon was the U. This clearly violated the state constitution in that the school rule was in direct conflict with a state law and the state constitution.

In the current controversy at UVU the issue is different. The question turns on whether or not Utah law allows a CFP holder to open carry a gun on a university campus. The law is not explicit on this point. Traditionally people have thought that one can carry a loaded gun openly if they have a CFP and that would naturally extend to a state university campus because there is no law saying that it doesn't.

UVU has no issue and is not preventing anyone with a CFP from carrying a concealed weapon. UVU on the other hand contends that the law does not allow a CFP holder to openly carry a gun. If the law does not allow it then there is no conflict between the schools policy and state law as was clearly the case in the U of U case.

The issues, and they weren't reached in the U of U case are as follows:

Can one who has a CFP legally carry a loaded handgun openly? People have always has said yes. BCI when asked in relation to this case said yes. The AG is not saying.

Can one who has a CFP legally carry a loaded handgun openly on a state university campus? See above.

mljdeckard
March 11, 2010, 08:48 PM
This is FAR from over. You can't draw conclusions from how this has gone in 72 hours.

Girodin
March 11, 2010, 11:25 PM
This is FAR from over. You can't draw conclusions from how this has gone in 72 hours.

What exactly do you think is going to occur? And what conclusions were drawn? By the way this incident happened 6 days ago. If six days isn't enough time to know if the AG is wanting to issue an opinion how about 2 years? Two years ago the AG was asked by the legislature to issue and opinion on this and he declined then saying it was best left to the legilstature. Is 2 years enough time to think he is not "more than happy" to issue an opinion? This issue isn't 72 hours old by any means. I hate to shatter your confidence in Shurtleff but opinions are best based in fact.

Check it out http://www.alumni.utah.edu/advocacy/docs/HB473-open_carry-firearms.pdf

Two thirds of the way down page 2 you will find the following "Lawmakers asked Shurtleff to write an opinion clarifying open carry rules, but the attorney general said he thought it best that legislators clear up the dispute."

I could speculate as to why he is not opining formally or otherwise but I wont.

This will just go away at least until there is another incident to keep it salient. The administrators and police know that and I have a hard time seeing them volunteering any media exposure such as participating in a debate or the like. An event or rally could get renewed media attention but even that would be fleeting if nothing sensational occurred during it. Really unless someone goes down there and gets arrested or there is something else that incites legal action I see the issue dropping of most people's radars. The legislature ends their session in 3 hours so this issue cannot really be raised there until next year.

Someone may step up to go to bat on this legally which would be great and they would have a fair amount of support but is anyone really willing to do it?

-eaux-
March 11, 2010, 11:50 PM
i'm not prone to read tyrades that are a page or 4 long.
the kid knew his rights by the letter of the law. he expressed his rights fluently. he exercised his rights within the letter of the law.
if LEO doesn't like it, they are more than welcome to cite him for a violation of their opinion and he wins in court.
it's that simple.
more power to this young man, he is on the right track.
know the law, know your rights, and in this day and age, make the most of your rights while you have them. exercise your rights legally to make a point before we all have to exercise them to defend our own lives and the lives of our families.
*former LEO's opinion. take with grain of salt and best wishes to you and yours.*
**does exercizing your rights qualify as civil disobedience? i guess in this country it does now.**

Girodin
March 12, 2010, 02:25 AM
Well this might get us somewhere. The young man at the center of this case has stated the following:


Re: UVU cops detained me for OCing on campus

Postby MajorNickmo on Thu 11 Mar 2010 10:45 pm
Aren't we missing the point that these campus PDs can't make any policies regarding firearms...they have ZERO authority according to Utah state law.

I'm going to write an email to all of the people that chief Brewer sent my email and his response to. I am going to politely request a meeting with all of them. I want 30 minutes of their time to state my case. If, after that I am still threatened with academic sanctions and being preemptively charged with Disrupting School Activities, then I will let them know that I have sought out legal counsel and will be taking them to court. If I cannot find legal counsel in time, then I will continue to open carry on campus from that meeting on and if they arrest me, I will take the bogus charges and use a public defender and state my case in front of a judge.

DCR
March 12, 2010, 11:13 AM
Thank you for the clarification, Girodin - it really helped. I'll be watching to see how this pans out.

If you enjoyed reading about "Student at UVU harassed for open carry video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!