protect our rights
Regular Member
check this link out. This guy was breaking no law, but charges might be filed because of disorderly conduct. Ridiculous!
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=14047833&nid=148
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=14047833&nid=148
Does anyone read any problems with Mr. Aphosian's viewpoint? To me it seems he is on the side of the mall and does not have a problem with the prosecutor filling disorderly conduct charges because the OCer did not use what he considers "proper decorum".Gun owners must act with decorum, advocate says
Meanwhile, gun rights advocate Clark Aphosian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council says just because you can, it doesn't always mean you should carry openly.
Aphosian said property owners have every right to ask someone to leave, especially if that property is a business.
"In these heady days of terrorism and multiple-victim shootings and public shootings, it is going to cause people to take a second or third look," Aphosian said. "I think people that are carrying the firearms probably, truth be told, expect to be stopped or questioned."
Gun owners need to act with decorum, as do citizens and property owners, Aphosian said.
"Both need to be exercise with appropriate decorum," he said. "I think both can coexist at the same time."
Aphosian said people doing something just because they can should also expect to be questioned. And if they violate some law in the process, they also should also expect to face possible penalties. At the same time, he said, gun ownership rights should be respected
....ANNOYS?....REPOSE?....c'mon Orem Utah....if this code were enforced equally, nobody would be walking the streets in Orem.Utah Code; 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.
----------
Utah County Codes. 13-1-1. Adoption of Utah Criminal Code.
The Utah Criminal Code, Sections 76-1-101 et seq., of the Utah Code, is hereby adopted as a Utah County Ordinance. Provided, however, that any provision of the foregoing having a penalty which cannot be imposed for violation of a county ordinance is not adopted.
----------
Orem City Code.11-1-3. Nuisance - Definition. This section defines nuisance by providing five general definitions of what constitutes a nuisance (subsection A), and then providing specific examples of situations, conduct or activities that constitute nuisances (subsection B). The purpose of the general definitions is to allow the City to classify an offending situation, conduct, or activity as a nuisance, even though the situation, conduct, or activity may not be listed as a nuisance in the specific examples. The first three general definitions are taken directly from Utah State law. The purpose of listing the specific examples is to identify some of the specific situations, conduct and activities that the City intends to abate as nuisances.
A. General Definitions of Nuisance. Any activity that meets any one or more of the five definitions set forth below shall constitute a nuisance if it occurs within the City of Orem:
1. Nuisance as Defined in U.C.A. 78-38-1(1). Anything which is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
2. Nuisance as Defined in U.C.A. 76-10-801. Any item, thing, manner, or condition whatsoever that it is dangerous to human life or health or renders soil, air, water, or food impure or unwholesome.
3. Nuisance as Defined in U.C.A. 76-10-803. Unlawfully doing any act or omitting to perform any duty, which act or omission:
a. annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of three or more persons;
b. offends public decency;
c. unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dangerous for passage, any lake, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway; or
d. in any way renders three or more persons insecure in life or the use of property. An act which affects three or more persons in any of the ways specified in this subsection is still a nuisance regardless of the extent to which the annoyance or damage inflicted on individuals is unequal.
4. Nuisance. A condition which:
a. wrongfully annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others; or
b. unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, any public park, square, street or highway, or any other public place; or
c. in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property, and which affects the rights of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of the damage may be unequal.
5. Specific Nuisances Listed in Subsection B. Anything specifically listed as a nuisance in subsection (B), below.
B. Nuisances Enumerated. Every situation, conduct or activity listed below constitutes a nuisance and may be abated pursuant to this ordinance. The listed examples are not exhaustive; a situation, conduct or activity not listed below, but coming within one of the general definitions of nuisance listed above, shall also constitute a nuisance. The first six listed nuisances are also listed as nuisances pursuant to U.C.A. 78 38 9:
6. Weapons. Every building or premises where a violation of Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5 (Weapons) of the Utah Code occurs on the premises.
7. Unsafe Condition. A condition that unreasonably or unlawfully affects the health or safety of one or more persons.
28. Inappropriate Conduct. Every property or premises where there exists an environment which causes, encourages or allows individuals or groups of individuals to commit one or more of the following acts on the property, premises or adjacent public place, including but not limited to:
d. By physical action, intentionally causing or attempting to cause another person to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury or the commission of a criminal act upon their person or upon property in their immediate possession;
Lawful is lawful. If these people weren't so dang scared to death over seeing a weapon no one would have even bothered to call the cops. The one caller said he was carrying an automatic rifle,,how did he know what the rifles abilities were? They've all been led by the nose by the lamestream media to think that all "black ugly guns" are automatic "Assault Rifles" The mans plans may have been to cause an uproar, to prove a point. Bu he should not be prosecuted. His LAWFUL carrying of weapons was not against the law. What should be against the law is stupid people calling 911 needlessly because they go Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!
That's nonsense.
Duke
My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
My guess is the rifle put the OCer over the top. There's a time and a place for everything, openly carrying a rifle, unloaded or not, into a shopping mall doesn't strike me as serving any purpose other than the one accomplished, which was to get everyone's drawers in a knot.
It makes my blood boil when someone tells me "It's a legal activity, but you can't do it." If they do charge him with being a nuisance I think it only fair that everyone who has a hair cut I don't like, dresses in a way I don't like, has a tattoo I don't like, drives a car I don't like, etc. gets fined because mowhawks, baggie shorts, hello kitty tattoos and pintos endangers my comfort.
I'm going to end my rant here before I say something I shouldn't
So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!
That's nonsense.
Duke
I said no such thing, I don't believe he should be charged with a crime.
Look, it's perfectly legal to walk into a shopping mall in one's underwear, and no one should get arrested or charged for that either, but it will raise eyebrows and possibly more
actually depending on what the underwear was, it may NOT be legal. Indecent exposure, ever heard of that?
Officers say that's because the man's actions caused a disturbance to many people, especially because it happened just one week after the tragic shooting in Tucson.
SNIP So just because the sheeple didn't like it, he should be charged with a crime ?!?!?!
Aphosian said property owners have every right to ask someone to leave, especially if that property is a business.