• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Open carry prosecution, interesting comments by police chief.

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
"At one point, the police chief had enough of the back and forth yelling, "Listen to me. Shut up and let me talk. What I want you to do is, bring your evidence and come to my prosecutor and judge and let them explain to you that you broke the law. Do you understand? You have the right to remain silent. Exercise it.""

Your prosecutor and judge? Thank you for solidifying and confirming the bias of the judiciary. IMO that comment alone should be enough for a [strike]change of venue[/strike] [whatever the term would be for a new judge to take the case], but, you know, IANAL.

http://www.katv.com/story/29854444/man-arrested-for-open-carry-in-bald-knob

Interesting that all 4 of the comments on the news article support the OCer.
 
Last edited:

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2013/2013R/Acts/Act746.pdf

Wow. That is one stupidly worded set of laws. I'm searching through the AR code and getting a headache. FYI: The LexisNexis site (where the AR code links redirect you) STINKS.

Fact 1:
§ 5. Right to bear arms.

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.
From the AR constitution.


Fact 2:
5-73-120. Carrying a weapon.
(c) It is permissible to carry a handgun under this section if at the time of the act of carrying a weapon:
(8) The person is in possession of a concealed handgun and has a valid license to carry a concealed handgun under § 5-73-301 et seq., or recognized under § 5-73-321 and is not in a prohibited place as defined by § 5-73-306;
This is the new wording, apparently.


Nowhere in the relevant sections does it mention anything about "openly" carrying. It's all "concealed." Until the AG and/or the Gov. issues an official opinion on the matter, I think (though I hope I'm wrong) that Mr. Chambless is up a creek.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Act 746 changed

"A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person."

to

"A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person."

As per what seemed usual, they had this general offense of carrying a weapon and then a bunch of exceptions, including carrying concealed with a licensed. Then, they pass Act 746 which essentially decriminalized general possession of a handgun sans unlawful intent.

All of the anti-liberty folks want to basically say that the fact the list of exceptions to the no-longer-existent prohibition was not cleaned up in the same bill, that act 746 never really passed. So, the only issue is really one of housekeeping. The code needs to be made consistent. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the general offense for carrying a weapon was changed and now it is no longer an offense to carry a weapon sans unlawful intent.
 

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
Can't find the ruling in the online databases. Maybe the official ruling hasn't been entered for them to report on? Or maybe the judge just ruled guilty without clarifying why he's ignoring the law :) Either way, should be a quick motion and new trial de novo at the circuit court by a jury. Being a criminal offense, you'd just need a single jury member to stand by the law for him to get off, right? Can't imagine finding a jury with 12 members who would all look at the laws wording and not a single one say "this doesn't make sense, why are we here!?"
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
The judge probably got to his seat via good ol' boy system even though he couldn't make a logically sound judgement to save his own life. Repeatedly stated how confused he was by the law, and then defaults to a guilty verdict based on the most asinine of logic, because heaven forbid he make a ruling that says the police chief that owns him (chief's words) was wrong.

I am reading that appeal is filed and his sentence has been stayed till Circuit Court of White County tries the case.

If anyone here is within traveling distance, there is a get-together being organized. You can PM me for details since LGOC discussion is not allowed ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
Last edited:

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
513
Location
Bandera, TX
So 15 days jail, $2,160 fine + 1 year probation...sad day for freedom in Arkansas.

Apparently the Police Chief was charged with assaulting his fiancee in 2011, yet Chambless did absolutely nothing wrong but got charged and found "guilty". What kind of BS topsy-turvey world we living in?
 
Last edited:

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,459
Location
Dallas
Got a co-worker in Bald Knob area and she carries open on her motorcycle. Will ask her for input.

S/w her - said it was a crazy ruling and hope it gets overturned and clarified.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Absolutely ridiculous! And why didn't he request a jury trial for Pete's sake?

I'm pretty confident he will win on appeal but had he just requested a jury trial it may have never reached that point.
A jury trial? Are you crazy? Have you ever had a jury trial? You must know that people are idiots. Except for an argument about secret meetings voiding the law (discussed below) which people seem to respond to .. if one is not going to use something to sway the emotions of a jury then a non-jury trial is best.

Under AK constitution: 13. Sessions to be open.
The sessions of each house, and of committees of the whole, shall be open, unless when the
business is such as ought to be kept secret

So judge said law was vague? One can introduce the record produced at the legislative level to clarify (committee/full house-senate) records. I don't see this being done here.

But it highlights another issue with criminal/civil laws....committees meet (at least in my state) in secret all the time at at least at the committee level...making the production of a proper record unavailable in violation of the 14th amendment of the US constitution. So the law may have been passed in violation of the 14th amendment (which is concerned with the due process concerns of how bills/laws are created and acted upon). The case Cole v. State, Colorado Supreme Court, 673 P.2d 345 explains why caucuses and whatnot do not eliminate the need for public meetings.

So in any criminal case I would bring up the violation of the open meeting laws and common law concerning the acting upon bills in secret by the state legislature as being abhorrent to the 14th amendment and use this as one part of a comprehensive defense strategy.

Secret meetings do not create a record that a court can then rely upon to learn more about the true meanings of a law.

I have provided my legislature testimony that, since almost every bill considered by legislative committees are debated and likely decided behind closed doors, that I could not find anyone guilty of anything in this state as a jurist due to the willful and wanton ignoring of a defendant's 14th amendment rights of due process during the laws' creation.
 

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
513
Location
Bandera, TX
A jury trial? Are you crazy? Have you ever had a jury trial? You must know that people are idiots. Except for an argument about secret meetings voiding the law (discussed below) which people seem to respond to .. if one is not going to use something to sway the emotions of a jury then a non-jury trial is best.

...snip...
Well the police chief was arrested in 2011 (lord knows how he ended up being a police chief)--his mugshot is posted online. For all I know, he and the judge are golfing buddies. I'd take my chances with a jury any day.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
So, I noticed the police chief said it was not properly holstered. I suspect that may have something to do with this. I don't know if the chief told the truth, or where the firearm was, but if he was brandishing it, I'm less inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Don't fall for that ****...

And yeah, I usually roll my eyes at what mcbeth says, but I have pretty consistently lost faith in jury systems. People are consistently idiots.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I don't necessarily believe the chief, as I said above. But why wasn't his defense attorney all over that. That certainly seemed to be the biggest issue that I read.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
513
Location
Bandera, TX
... but I have pretty consistently lost faith in jury systems. People are consistently idiots.
True dat!! But I have even less faith in judges these days. I'd rather take my chance there's at least one person on the jury that thinks like me (or, I'm sure, anyone on this forum) instead of leaving it up to one person who--no matter their political affiliation or how they got to the bench--likely feels some kind of "keep-the-cogs-of-justice-going" kinship with the local law enforcement, et al.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,015
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
In light of this, not to mention the Heller ruling, I'd get a good lawyer and sue.
From the link: "While I do not encourage 'open carry' it is my opinion..."

My response, were I an Arkansasian: "I don't give a flying $#@% whether you encourage something or not - your job is to give opinions on the LAW, and to enforce the LAW. You feel me?"
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
Wow. What a mockery of justice.

The prosecution called several witnesses who stated that someone carrying a gun is scary, then the prosecutor concluded that was proof that Chambless was guilty of disorderly conduct.

The Chief of Police said Chambless wasn't carrying a "properly holstered" gun, therefore Chambless was guilty of illegally carrying a weapon. I guess.

The prosecutor stated that there was no need to carry a gun into McDonald’s, essentially arguing that Chambless had to prove his innocence, not that the prosecutor had to prove his guilt.

The judge first concluded that the law allowed open carry, but then said he was confused, so finally concluded that Chambless was guilty of carrying a weapon and disorderly conduct and called Chambless' behavior "physically offensive."

Unbelievable.
 
Top