-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Confusion over WY Open Carry restriction
- Thread starter OCGLOCK
- Start date
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
rastus wrote:
rastus wrote:
Huh?
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
imported post
Looks like this is progressing nicely to a good conclusion. Seems we need two things here, however.
1. Keep watching. We each need to talk to the police and sheriff in our own area about open carry and our rights in general. Until these "laws" are totally off the books, nobody is really safe from harassment or arrest, regardless of what the officials say.
Be polite, be educational and be CAREFUL. Don't give our enemies, or even those who don't understand, any ammunition to use against us.
2. CARRY for pity sake!! Recruit others to carry! I've been preaching to the choir for more than three years and, as far as I know, I'm STILL the only private citizen in Newcastle, Wyoming that carries a gun, at least openly.
Sticking out like a sore thumb, MamaLiberty
Looks like this is progressing nicely to a good conclusion. Seems we need two things here, however.
1. Keep watching. We each need to talk to the police and sheriff in our own area about open carry and our rights in general. Until these "laws" are totally off the books, nobody is really safe from harassment or arrest, regardless of what the officials say.
Be polite, be educational and be CAREFUL. Don't give our enemies, or even those who don't understand, any ammunition to use against us.
2. CARRY for pity sake!! Recruit others to carry! I've been preaching to the choir for more than three years and, as far as I know, I'm STILL the only private citizen in Newcastle, Wyoming that carries a gun, at least openly.
Sticking out like a sore thumb, MamaLiberty
imported post
In having read several of the replies on this forumthere werea fewthat related to howsome peoplehad been "Hassled" by law enforcement for carrying openly. What many of these folks probably need to understand was that these officers were most likley responding to a "Man with a gun call" that had been phoned in by a citizen who saw them packing and was made nervous enough by that they theyphoned it in.
I am a police officer and alwayscarry while off duty. With that said, I always carry concealed. I am still ready to take action should I need to do so but I am not making people around me nervous. It is my understanding that Wyoming honors most concealed carry permits issued by other states (Check the laws on this one)so concealed carry, for the most part,should not be an issue here if you have such a permit.
Those who do not have a permit, or who wish to carry openly even though they do,must understand that their character or good intent is not apparent to the casual observer. Nervous people will occassionaly call law enforcement on thisand when called, law enforcement must respond to investigate. This is not "Hassling" anyone exercising their rights, as long as the responding officers conduct themselves asthey should.
In having read several of the replies on this forumthere werea fewthat related to howsome peoplehad been "Hassled" by law enforcement for carrying openly. What many of these folks probably need to understand was that these officers were most likley responding to a "Man with a gun call" that had been phoned in by a citizen who saw them packing and was made nervous enough by that they theyphoned it in.
I am a police officer and alwayscarry while off duty. With that said, I always carry concealed. I am still ready to take action should I need to do so but I am not making people around me nervous. It is my understanding that Wyoming honors most concealed carry permits issued by other states (Check the laws on this one)so concealed carry, for the most part,should not be an issue here if you have such a permit.
Those who do not have a permit, or who wish to carry openly even though they do,must understand that their character or good intent is not apparent to the casual observer. Nervous people will occassionaly call law enforcement on thisand when called, law enforcement must respond to investigate. This is not "Hassling" anyone exercising their rights, as long as the responding officers conduct themselves asthey should.
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
imported post
You have this just backwards. My "character" and intent must be assumed to be peaceful unless I am actively doing something to threaten or harm others. Presumption of innocence is one very important item that is evidently no longer taught to police personnel. So, unless I am doing something to cause harm, there is no reason for anyone to be alarmed or uncomfortable, especially police.
The proper response to a caller who is frightened at the sight of an armed citizen would be, "Were they threatening anyone? Were they committing a crime?" If the answer was NO, then there would be no reason for a contact and the caller should be gently reminded that they had no reason to be uncomfortable or to call police since the person was completely within their rights.
The "hassling" comes with incidents such as that which started this thread. The police officer did not know or understand the state law and threatened the person as if he were a criminal, rather than as one who was exercising his right to carry. It happens all the time.
And your notion that CC is somehow the magic answer is no answer at all. The actual sight of openly carried sidearms can, eventually, help the ninnies to understand that we are not the criminals, and are not a threat. Proper response to those callers could help a great deal as well.
You have this just backwards. My "character" and intent must be assumed to be peaceful unless I am actively doing something to threaten or harm others. Presumption of innocence is one very important item that is evidently no longer taught to police personnel. So, unless I am doing something to cause harm, there is no reason for anyone to be alarmed or uncomfortable, especially police.
The proper response to a caller who is frightened at the sight of an armed citizen would be, "Were they threatening anyone? Were they committing a crime?" If the answer was NO, then there would be no reason for a contact and the caller should be gently reminded that they had no reason to be uncomfortable or to call police since the person was completely within their rights.
The "hassling" comes with incidents such as that which started this thread. The police officer did not know or understand the state law and threatened the person as if he were a criminal, rather than as one who was exercising his right to carry. It happens all the time.
And your notion that CC is somehow the magic answer is no answer at all. The actual sight of openly carried sidearms can, eventually, help the ninnies to understand that we are not the criminals, and are not a threat. Proper response to those callers could help a great deal as well.
SDguy
Regular Member
imported post
The real issue for me is to be threatened with arrest for carrying and having it published in a newspaper article. Threatened against doing something legal is the "hasseling" I am concerned about.
The second form of hasseling is being given a hard time for expressing my concern over a local community acting against state constitutional rights. Being told that I am an outside instigator just because I don't live in that town. Yet, I am directly affected by the town law and local law enforcement.
These are things that should be of concern to anyone who happens to travel through small towns, stop to eat or fuel up while carrying firearms.
I am not aware of any "man with a gun" calls having to to with this issue. If you are aware of such calls please inform us with the facts. I carry concealed and openly and have never had anyone make a "man with a gun" call. I have had people ask me about the law and gun rights. Many a civil discussion with vacationing people who are interested in how this works but not a single person who expressed fear.
The real issue for me is to be threatened with arrest for carrying and having it published in a newspaper article. Threatened against doing something legal is the "hasseling" I am concerned about.
The second form of hasseling is being given a hard time for expressing my concern over a local community acting against state constitutional rights. Being told that I am an outside instigator just because I don't live in that town. Yet, I am directly affected by the town law and local law enforcement.
These are things that should be of concern to anyone who happens to travel through small towns, stop to eat or fuel up while carrying firearms.
I am not aware of any "man with a gun" calls having to to with this issue. If you are aware of such calls please inform us with the facts. I carry concealed and openly and have never had anyone make a "man with a gun" call. I have had people ask me about the law and gun rights. Many a civil discussion with vacationing people who are interested in how this works but not a single person who expressed fear.
MatieA
Regular Member
imported post
mattman wrote:
mattman wrote:
I have always open carried except for a few times when my duster covered it, but have never had any problems. I have even been asked to pose with tourist's kids so that they could take a picture. I wonder how many family albums I'm in?
SDguy
Regular Member
imported post
Does anyone know if this item is on the next town meeting agenda? We need to continue watching this issue in Pine Bluffs.
I get the impression the town board may think they can leave the current unconstitutional regulation on the books and just not enforce it. That would not be the proper way to handle this issue.
Does anyone know if this item is on the next town meeting agenda? We need to continue watching this issue in Pine Bluffs.
I get the impression the town board may think they can leave the current unconstitutional regulation on the books and just not enforce it. That would not be the proper way to handle this issue.
Anubis
Newbie
imported post
mattman wrote:
So if a nervous person makes a MWAG call about me OCing, and an officer interrogates me, I shouldn't feel hassled. By this logic, when I make a 911 call about the nervous person interfering with my going about my lawful activities, officers should respond and grill the nervous person too, right?
mattman wrote:
Welcome to the forum, officer mattman. I have a CO permit and usually do carry concealed; but as you know, WY is considering canceling recognition of my permit. Then my only armed self-defense option in WY would be OC.
So if a nervous person makes a MWAG call about me OCing, and an officer interrogates me, I shouldn't feel hassled. By this logic, when I make a 911 call about the nervous person interfering with my going about my lawful activities, officers should respond and grill the nervous person too, right?
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
mattman wrote:
First, WELCOME!!
I agree with the totality of your post, but as I'm sure you suspect, the "as they should" is where things go off the rails.
As LE, we are pleased that you are here. Whatever you do, don't runawayfrom the board because some negative impression of the board or of OCers confirms what other LEOs have said about "us".
Your first few posts are a good sign.
Again, welcome!
mattman wrote:
First, WELCOME!!
I agree with the totality of your post, but as I'm sure you suspect, the "as they should" is where things go off the rails.
As LE, we are pleased that you are here. Whatever you do, don't runawayfrom the board because some negative impression of the board or of OCers confirms what other LEOs have said about "us".
Your first few posts are a good sign.
Again, welcome!
BenjaminHare
Regular Member
imported post
What does the Pine Bluffs PD have to say about this issue? I called them (307-245-3777) and was assured "until further notice" I would not be arrested or fined if I OCed in town. Although I do not travel very often to Pine Bluffs I am planning on attending the Town Council meeting on the 23rd of this month. That will be my day to put the "until further notice" issue to the test.
What does the Pine Bluffs PD have to say about this issue? I called them (307-245-3777) and was assured "until further notice" I would not be arrested or fined if I OCed in town. Although I do not travel very often to Pine Bluffs I am planning on attending the Town Council meeting on the 23rd of this month. That will be my day to put the "until further notice" issue to the test.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
BenjaminHare wrote:
Call me pessimistic, butI think you have hit upon a couple (and there are more) elements of the whole matter that make me distrust those in authority in Pine Bluffs: 1) the "until further notice"? answerand 2) the seeming lack of a timetable for the town council to change their laws.
Those in authority in this little spot on the map seem to have worked their way into a contradictory position, and now they are puffing their chest out and whining about agitators.
I'm glad to hear that there will be yet another set of eyes and ears on their activities (or lack thereof) related to the matter on March 23.
Keep us posted.
BenjaminHare wrote:
Call me pessimistic, butI think you have hit upon a couple (and there are more) elements of the whole matter that make me distrust those in authority in Pine Bluffs: 1) the "until further notice"? answerand 2) the seeming lack of a timetable for the town council to change their laws.
Those in authority in this little spot on the map seem to have worked their way into a contradictory position, and now they are puffing their chest out and whining about agitators.
I'm glad to hear that there will be yet another set of eyes and ears on their activities (or lack thereof) related to the matter on March 23.
Keep us posted.
oshane
Opt-Out Members
imported post
PaulB wrote:
Statutes are almost never written in such a way that the average person could know what the common law is on a subject. That is, unless the statute specifically abrogates the common law, courts assume the legislature meant to continue employing all relevant common law doctrines.
Here, the common law doctrines of self-defense and necessity apply. They are affirmative defenses, meaning that if the overly-zealous prosecutor chooses to file, you may have to endure a trial, etc., but ultimately, if your actions were reasonable and lawful, you will just need to demonstrate that you were acting in self-defense or out of necessity, and you likely will not be convicted under the ordinance. Most prosecutors will see a self-defense action that is reasonable under the circumstances and not charge you, because it would be a) wrong and b) a waste of everyone's time.
PaulB wrote:
Statutes are almost never written in such a way that the average person could know what the common law is on a subject. That is, unless the statute specifically abrogates the common law, courts assume the legislature meant to continue employing all relevant common law doctrines.
Here, the common law doctrines of self-defense and necessity apply. They are affirmative defenses, meaning that if the overly-zealous prosecutor chooses to file, you may have to endure a trial, etc., but ultimately, if your actions were reasonable and lawful, you will just need to demonstrate that you were acting in self-defense or out of necessity, and you likely will not be convicted under the ordinance. Most prosecutors will see a self-defense action that is reasonable under the circumstances and not charge you, because it would be a) wrong and b) a waste of everyone's time.
oshane
Opt-Out Members
imported post
MatieA wrote:
In Section 8-115(e), the "intent or avowed purpose" clause is a manifestation of the defendant's mental state. That is, this ordinance has a built in explicit "mens rea" (latin for: "guilty mind") that the prosecutor/state would have to prove to convict you. If you are open carrying without the intent or avowed purpose of doing the harm specified, you will have no problem. Or, even if the prosecutor is a big jerk, your defense will not be very difficult, because he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to do the harm listed.
MatieA wrote:
In Section 8-115(e), the "intent or avowed purpose" clause is a manifestation of the defendant's mental state. That is, this ordinance has a built in explicit "mens rea" (latin for: "guilty mind") that the prosecutor/state would have to prove to convict you. If you are open carrying without the intent or avowed purpose of doing the harm specified, you will have no problem. Or, even if the prosecutor is a big jerk, your defense will not be very difficult, because he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to do the harm listed.
oshane
Opt-Out Members
imported post
AB wrote:
It is facially ambiguous, but most of the fear about it is probably misplaced. Rules of statutory interpretation dictate that a court read the last clause in context to the first clause so that the whole statement is coherent.
You should also know that the Wyoming Supreme Court is totally sane and very conservative when it comes to making sure the rights of the people are not infringed.
In this case, the latter clause is probably the legislature's way of creating a catch-all phrase to embody other things like riots and genuine disturbances of the peace. It is not meant to catch-all activity or render the pre-emption law as a whole void or absurd. For example, what if there was no "riot" per se but there was a gang war in town (God forbid). Would it classify as a riot or classic disturbance? Probably not. But it would fall under the catch-all clause and the state could use that to convict.
It is not meant to infringe the rights of people open carrying.
AB wrote:
It is facially ambiguous, but most of the fear about it is probably misplaced. Rules of statutory interpretation dictate that a court read the last clause in context to the first clause so that the whole statement is coherent.
You should also know that the Wyoming Supreme Court is totally sane and very conservative when it comes to making sure the rights of the people are not infringed.
In this case, the latter clause is probably the legislature's way of creating a catch-all phrase to embody other things like riots and genuine disturbances of the peace. It is not meant to catch-all activity or render the pre-emption law as a whole void or absurd. For example, what if there was no "riot" per se but there was a gang war in town (God forbid). Would it classify as a riot or classic disturbance? Probably not. But it would fall under the catch-all clause and the state could use that to convict.
It is not meant to infringe the rights of people open carrying.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
oshane wrote:
I don't know whether you have read the entire thread, nor do I know what experience you have with those in authority trying to twist what is "clear".
Whatever the intent of the legislature, unless it is crystal clear, you can be assured that the letter of the law can and will be turned against you by those intent on making a point. As someone else said previously, thosepeople will do their best to make black white, and vice versa.
Yes, you may win as you work yourself up the court system to the WSC, but at what cost??
A good example is here in Ohio, where the original CCW law said that one may not carry in places that "dispense" liquor. What does that mean to most people? I would say "sell for consumption on the premises", yet a person was charged for carrying in a Wal-Mart...
So, the same RKBA group that who worked onthe passage of the first version of the bill had to go back to the legislature and have the law made more specific - now it says you may not carry in a (liquor establishment) "in which any person is consuming liquor".
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.121
oshane wrote:
I quoted only a small part of both of your posts, because I think that portion well represents the thrust of them.
I don't know whether you have read the entire thread, nor do I know what experience you have with those in authority trying to twist what is "clear".
Whatever the intent of the legislature, unless it is crystal clear, you can be assured that the letter of the law can and will be turned against you by those intent on making a point. As someone else said previously, thosepeople will do their best to make black white, and vice versa.
Yes, you may win as you work yourself up the court system to the WSC, but at what cost??
A good example is here in Ohio, where the original CCW law said that one may not carry in places that "dispense" liquor. What does that mean to most people? I would say "sell for consumption on the premises", yet a person was charged for carrying in a Wal-Mart...
So, the same RKBA group that who worked onthe passage of the first version of the bill had to go back to the legislature and have the law made more specific - now it says you may not carry in a (liquor establishment) "in which any person is consuming liquor".
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.121
oshane
Opt-Out Members
imported post
BB62 wrote:
Yes, I read the entire thread, and I manifestly understand the tendency of the police and the executive of a jurisdiction to over-interpret laws in favor of the state.
You asked rhetorically that "you may win . . . [in] the court system . . . but at what cost?" Yes, it is always a huge hassle to go to court, especially because there is a risk of losing.
So, is it worth it to attempt to or lobby to have the legislated law clarified, narrowed, specified so the risk of having to ever go to court is minimized. Yes! Always.
That said, what I am pointing out is that in many cases that people were hypothesizing on this thread (over-eager LEOs arresting you), the prosecutor would not charge you or the trial court would likely dismiss, find in summary judgment for the defendant (you) or if not, the Supreme Court of Wyoming would (eventually) find in your favor.
Would that be a large cost that no one should have to bear? Yes. However, presuming you won (most likely), it would also set a new or clarify an old precedent for law enforcement.
One thing that I found interesting about the Pine Bluffs situation was that the mayor, the council and the city attorney were entirely rational and knew the pre-emption law well enough to realize the local law (an old one) was . . . preempted.
Sometimes people wonder why laws/ordinances that have been overruled or preempted are not taken off the books. It's because the law is simply not a well-oiled or engineered system. If "everybody" (i.e. the council) knows that the ordinance is now moot by state statute or case law, then they rationalize not acting, because it's not that important as the legal community knows the ordinance is dead letter.
Should they repeal the law? Yes! It is worth their time: probably not. Is it worth ours? Yes. So I also advocate the lobbying to repeal preempted ordinances, too.
But in the meantime, you shouldn't be worried about the ones listed in this thread.
BB62 wrote:
Yes, I read the entire thread, and I manifestly understand the tendency of the police and the executive of a jurisdiction to over-interpret laws in favor of the state.
You asked rhetorically that "you may win . . . [in] the court system . . . but at what cost?" Yes, it is always a huge hassle to go to court, especially because there is a risk of losing.
So, is it worth it to attempt to or lobby to have the legislated law clarified, narrowed, specified so the risk of having to ever go to court is minimized. Yes! Always.
That said, what I am pointing out is that in many cases that people were hypothesizing on this thread (over-eager LEOs arresting you), the prosecutor would not charge you or the trial court would likely dismiss, find in summary judgment for the defendant (you) or if not, the Supreme Court of Wyoming would (eventually) find in your favor.
Would that be a large cost that no one should have to bear? Yes. However, presuming you won (most likely), it would also set a new or clarify an old precedent for law enforcement.
One thing that I found interesting about the Pine Bluffs situation was that the mayor, the council and the city attorney were entirely rational and knew the pre-emption law well enough to realize the local law (an old one) was . . . preempted.
Sometimes people wonder why laws/ordinances that have been overruled or preempted are not taken off the books. It's because the law is simply not a well-oiled or engineered system. If "everybody" (i.e. the council) knows that the ordinance is now moot by state statute or case law, then they rationalize not acting, because it's not that important as the legal community knows the ordinance is dead letter.
Should they repeal the law? Yes! It is worth their time: probably not. Is it worth ours? Yes. So I also advocate the lobbying to repeal preempted ordinances, too.
But in the meantime, you shouldn't be worried about the ones listed in this thread.
MatieA
Regular Member
imported post
oshane wrote:
oshane wrote:
I believe that our mayor, and town council have every intention of taking care of this matter, but it is not a process that can be done overnight. Would you want to live somewhere where laws could be changed overnight, ruling out any chance of you having a say in the matter? I have emailed the town attorney someordinances that I felt were worded in an appropriate manner to uphold state laws,and give citizens their freedoms. whether or not he uses them, I stillfelt compelled to offer him my $.02 worth. I do not know how long this will take,and I do not plan on letting the matter drop; I also do not plan to harrass the council, making matters worse for everyone involved, and making those of us who enjoy our "right to carry" an enemy to the council.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
oshane wrote:
Uh, not quite...
If you read the entire thread carefully, you will find that not only was the city attorney VERY resistant to that (a preempted) interpretation of PB's laws, but also that the seeming sacrificial lamb (since when does a police dept have a low-level officer speak for it) felt the same way - the attorney only changing his tune when at the council meeting.
Even now, the best that can be gotten out of the police department is that "until further notice" one needn't worry?
"But in the meantime, you shouldn't be worried about the ones listed in this thread."
In the meantime, I and any right-thinking person SHOULD worry about preempted laws (or those that are unclear) remaining on the books.
Here's another example, though not from Wyoming, of where you'd better have the appropriate size checkbook if you're not worried about such things:
http://buckeyefirearms.org/node/6528
oshane wrote:
Uh, not quite...
If you read the entire thread carefully, you will find that not only was the city attorney VERY resistant to that (a preempted) interpretation of PB's laws, but also that the seeming sacrificial lamb (since when does a police dept have a low-level officer speak for it) felt the same way - the attorney only changing his tune when at the council meeting.
Even now, the best that can be gotten out of the police department is that "until further notice" one needn't worry?
"But in the meantime, you shouldn't be worried about the ones listed in this thread."
In the meantime, I and any right-thinking person SHOULD worry about preempted laws (or those that are unclear) remaining on the books.
Here's another example, though not from Wyoming, of where you'd better have the appropriate size checkbook if you're not worried about such things:
http://buckeyefirearms.org/node/6528
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
MatieA wrote:
Only the wording changes necessary to bring PB into compliance with Wyoming's preemption law can be done virtually overnight. I don't know what the required reading/hearing process is in PB,but that must take it's own course in addition to the time required to modify the ordinance's wording.
Since the wording changes are relatively easily done, it will be interesting to see what progress or timetable, if any, is offered at the next council meeting so the reading/hearing process can begin.
MatieA wrote:
I agree.
Only the wording changes necessary to bring PB into compliance with Wyoming's preemption law can be done virtually overnight. I don't know what the required reading/hearing process is in PB,but that must take it's own course in addition to the time required to modify the ordinance's wording.
Since the wording changes are relatively easily done, it will be interesting to see what progress or timetable, if any, is offered at the next council meeting so the reading/hearing process can begin.