That is not clear to me, in particular the “rude, angry, or threatening manner”, but given that this board has someone who says he will call 911 every time he sees someone open carrying a holstered pistol, YMMV. I was hoping there would be a more precise definition.
They’re black. And could very easily be plastic. I have some tiki torches that have metal cannisters at the top. They are slightly thicker than soda cans and much thinner than soup cans. If I was going to use it as a weapon, I would probably choose to use the pointy end at the bottom rather than the aluminum can at the top held together with something slightly less sturdy than duct tape.
They aren’t held on very tightly and would probably plop off after you tried to use it to hit someone. Nah, they’re not weapons. They had weapons but noone was thinking, Ohh I’ll bring a tiki torch in case shit goes down.
Utah has a law that has some strikingly similar language, but I don’t think anyone would be convicted (or even charged) under it, at least if the only evidence against them were photographs similar to this. Here is Utah Code § 75-10-506:
[QUOTE=Utah Code § 75-10-506] 76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section:
_ (a) “Dangerous weapon” means an item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The following factors shall be used in determining whether an item, object, or thing is a dangerous weapon:
_ _ (i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
_ _ (ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and
_ _ (iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was exhibited or used.
_ (b) “Threatening manner” does not include:
_ _ (i) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
_ _ (ii) informing another of the actor’s possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, and not amounting to a violation of Section 76-5-103, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another’s use of unlawful force:
_ (a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
_ (b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.
(4) This section does not apply to a person listed in Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a) through (e) in performance of the person’s duties.
[/QUOTE]
I actually helped get the law amended a few years ago to clarify that this sort of behavior should be legal.
Are you concerned at all that allowing this kind of thing might increase the chances of really, really bad things happening in some circumstances? For example, suppose (as I said before) white supremacists show up for a rally with very powerful weaponry, and anti-racists show up to counter-protest with very powerful weaponry… it wouldn’t take much at all for such a situation to turn into a bloodbath with hundreds dead or more, along with reprisals in follow up and worse.
The only way I can see to possibly manage this is for very robust law enforcement that maintains great separation between the two groups of protesters. But wouldn’t this be limiting one or both groups’ rights to free speech?
I’m not saying that open carry should be illegal, but that there really might be tradeoffs here, especially when we’re talking about highly charged political demonstrations involving an ideology (i.e. white supremacism) with a long history (up to today) of extremely brutal violence. Is the freedom to open carry worth it if we have to limit speech to minimize the chances of a bloodbath?
Do you propose banning cars as well? All this talk of weapons, guns and other scary stuff, yet the tool actually used to kill someone (and injure a bunch more) was a car, not a gun or a bat. That’s the thing…people are focused on the show, on the trolling aspects, and not on the meat. Those weapons were there to troll the anti-protester crowd. Had they been used, then the police would have been in a position to arrest everyone involved in their use and those people (assuming they survived) would be looking to spend the rest of their lives in jail. While that was happening and folks were fretting about scary guns and base ball bats a white supremacist idiot decided to drive a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring around 20 others. Are you going to ban cars anywhere near all protests that have two sides? Then what, when they do something else?
The thing is until someone DOES use those weapons they had overtly for the show during a protest I don’t see how banning them works. If they DO use them, of course, that’s another kettle of fish…we have laws for that. But it’s not the displayed weapon used to troll people that’s the danger…it’s the mind of the idiot who can cheerfully drive his car into a crowd of people and kill a woman just because he doesn’t like her political stance.
Just a minor modification-- anyone “brandishing” a weapon should be subject to arrest as well. Bring a gun if you must (and where the law allows it), but as soon as you start pointing it at someone who is not threatening you with violence, then you have stepped over the line.
n.b.: I’m no fan of the 2nd amendment, and would prefer it didn’t exist. But as long as it does, we have to accept it as part of the law of the land.
Is there any evidence that people were pointing guns at others? Yes, I agree…if that was the case then the police should have arrested anyone doing that immediately. From what I’ve read, it seemed to be more than they had the weapons on them but that the thread was simply the perceived thread of some crazy white supremacist type with a weapon, not anything overt.
I thought we were addressing the general situation, not only the one that transpired over the weekend. Especially in that 2nd paragraph that I quoted from your post.
Well, then reality sets in…if someone is threatening someone with a gun don’t the police, with the existing laws, have the duty to arrest them? If we are talking about a general situation then it doesn’t seem, to me, to be a collision between the 1st and 2nd amendment…in fact, the amendments don’t come into it. It’s simply a felony crime. If we are talking specifically about this weekend, which I assumed was the gist of the thread even if it wasn’t overtly stated, then I don’t know of any instances where someone pointed a gun at an anti-protester and the police just stood by and watched because they were protecting either their 1st or 2nd amendment rights.
It’s a possibility, but not one that I consider very likely in Utah. Certainly it’s tragic when people try to kill each other for expressing themselves.
Protest groups are often required to obtain a permit, among other limits on their right to free speech already in place, and I don’t think it would be terribly difficult to require that their permits specify routes for marchers or location for assembly with some separation between the opposing groups.
There are certainly tradeoffs, and my understanding is that some states have banned the carrying of weapons at political events. I was just pointing out that Utah wasn’t one of them (and I wouldn’t support us becoming one of them). We don’t tend to have many racially-charged (or really anything-charged) protests that escalate into violence. Perhaps our hot-tempered Californian neighbors would be a better-suited location for such laws.
I’m not advocating for one answer or the other, since I’m unsure what the best answer is. I just think that at some point, I think it’s likely that we could have two very angry heavily armed groups with opposing views arriving at the same spot to protest/counter-protest, and a bloodbath would become very likely. And perhaps we either have to live with that likelihood, or restrict their 1st amendment rights (by confining them to separate areas) or 2nd (by banning open-carry at marches and protests).
To summon Heller, a baseball bat is not the type of arm* that a citizen at the time of the founding was expected to arrive with for militia service, so it is arguably outside the scope of the Second Amendment.
To argue otherwise would open the law to the absurdities argued upthread. Almost anything the government wanted to ban in public could be constitutionally permitted by attaching a weapon to it. I cannot carry an open bottle of beer in public? Well, just tape a knife blade to the side of it and now it is my militia weapon.
*Of course, baseball wasn’t invented yet, but an analogy could be made to iron posts or pikes.
Life is risk. And as I said, what good would such a ban have accomplished in this case? After all, no one was shot or beaten to death with a bat…instead, an idiot drove a car into the crowd. It could just have easily been a truck, and we’d have had something similar to what happened in France. At a certain point, you just have to allow life to happen and be prepared to pick up the pieces and punish the guilty. I hope this guy never sees the light of day as a free man again.
What if my ‘metal pipe’ is a mace or a Morningstar (or has “For Bashing Heads”) written on the side? Is it then a weapon (“arms”) and subject to constitutional protection? What if it’s a sword?
Some of the photos show guys with guns within inches of the triggers. The guns are pointed at the ground, but not straight down, more like 45 degrees (like that could be near my feet if I was a few yards away. Why is that not ‘brandishing’?
In the photo I saw, the gun-carriers were generally practicing decent gun safety habits.
The finger along the slide / frame of the firearm is a fairly standard “safety” position. It’s sometimes called “indexing”. It’s to help the gun-carrier adhere to the “keep your finger off the trigger” rule.
Likewise, the direction they had the weapons pointed is generally considered one of the appropriate options:
There is a difference between bearing arms and using them…that would be the distinction. Holding a weapon that is safe (i.e. it’s not pointed at anyone, such as at the ground) with your finger indexed along the frame is different than a finger on the trigger and gun pointed at someone.
It comes down to use (from my non-lawyer perspective)…if it’s legal to open carry, say, a fire arm (or sword or mace…which I don’t think is always the case in any of these things), then you could have them at such a function. Threatening someone with them would be like threatening someone with any sort of violence, and could and probably would be an actionable offense by the police. USING it, however, is a whole 'nother thing, and definitely, would.
