[Outsider]

So this has been my next project after I transcribed H.B. 473 audio file. So I've been working on this because most LEOs tell us that we are "disturbing the peace" for open carrying. After pouring over today and getting some input from Dave, here is what we have thus far:

http://safety.charlesahall.com/files/Di ... onduct.pdf

I'm very open to suggestions. There is one part that says "I DON"T HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS PART!!! HELP!!!" It is dealing with U.C.A. 76-9-102(b) and need some help on it. Any input here will be great because I don't know what to put in or how to word what I have in my head, which is nothing (no ideas, I have a brain).

I'd also like to acknowledge that the idea really came from reading Scott's "Utah Gun Law" pamphlet and some of things in his I have copied over to kinda make them uniformed. Thanks Scotty! You da man!

 

[rdoggsilva]

Hay it looks pretty good there bud. Will be a big help along with Scotty T's.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Once this is folded into three columns, the first column on page 2 becomes the actual first page of the pamphlet, right?
I think that you need some kind of title at the top of that column to catch the eye.

Also, the assertion in your first paragraph on p.2 that open carry of a firearm is perfectly legal is subject to conditions, i.e. without a CFP it must be unloaded. I would reword that paragraph to be more factually accurate ... something like this:

In the State of Utah “open carry” (plain view) of
a holstered firearm is perfectly legal with or without a
concealed firearm permit (CFP). With a CFP, it can be
fully loaded. Without a CFP it must be unloaded.

Here's a grammatical correction to a paragraph. I removed "no" and added "a":

And remember that only the Utah State
Legislature can regulate firearms, meaning a
“local [(city or county)] authority or state entity
may not enact or enforce any ordinance,
regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms” (see
U.C.A. 76-10-500). [emphasis added]

I inserted in red the missing piece that I guessed you meant:

The author of this pamphlet is not a lawyer and
the contents herein should not be used as legal
advice. The laws and regulations presented are
current through the 2007 Legislation Session
and are subject to change. It is a firearms owner's responsibility
to stay current with the latest laws, regulations,
and statutes on ownership and use of firearms.

I've run out of time. This is looking good, but still needs a bit of work.
I'll try and look at it tomorrow, but no guarantees.

 

[Cinhil]

I like what you are doing here. I must agree with Jeff that the minor changes he suggests are things I thought of as I read through this pamphlet. I was in the middle of a large project and didn't have time to comment last night, but the changes will make the pamphlet more accurate and reflective of the law and constitutional rights of the States Citizenry. There is still the last item you are stewing over, as am I, it needs something but I am working and don't have time to cogitate upon it at this time. Perhaps Jeff will come back with an idea or two, or one of our other members. Keep up the great work!

 

[rdoggsilva]

I thought it look good, but after reading Jeff's commits he is right. It will read and look a lot better. But then I am not an English Teacher.

 

[TARFU]

I'm very open to suggestions. There is one part that says "I DON"T HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS PART!!! HELP!!!" It is dealing with U.C.A. 76-9-102(b) and need some help on it. Any input here will be great because I don't know what to put in or how to word what I have in my head, which is nothing (no ideas, I have a brain).

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.

Tell the police you are not trying to alarm anyone, but you don't feel safe and carry for protection. You could use the argument that the state is not required to protect people. I remember there being other references to the state not having to provide protection but this is the one I could find:
U.S. Supreme Court
DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.,
489 U.S. 189 (1989)

(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a
violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide
members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation
on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it
forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its
language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those
interests do not come to harm through other means. Pp. 194-197.

 

[Outsider]

I'm still working on this. Just moved this past week and going to get back to work on it later this week.

 

[thx997303]

Hey, why didn't you post this over at OCDO? Some of us don't come to this site to often,

Looks good man!

 

[GeneticsDave]

Well then, this should be an incentive. Besides, this forum is way easier on the eyes than OCDO... they need a serious UPGRADE!!! :lolbang:

 

[scorpioajr]

Hey, why didn't you post this over at OCDO? Some of us don't come to this site to often,

Looks good man!

thats true.

 

[thx997303]

I'll agree there.

 

[Outsider]

Well then, this should be an incentive. Besides, this forum is way easier on the eyes than OCDO... they need a serious UPGRADE!!! :lolbang:

That is because they aren't hosting their forums off their website, they are using a service WowBB which is kinda like ezBoard or Yuku. If they upgrade to their own forums they can customize a lot more.

 

[thx997303]

as far as Open carry, OCDO is a lot better. Of course, that is if you are wanting to know about things on the national level.

 

[Outsider]

as far as Open carry, OCDO is a lot better. Of course, that is if you are wanting to know about things on the national level.

I like someone at the national level with OCDO but for more local UCC is where it is at.

 

[bane]

I'm not sure about that.

In the past it seems local and breaking legal issues were reported on by OCDO that we missed (or were late on) and OCDO seemed to be more pro-active in moving on the issues than we were here.

Don't get me wrong, I visit OCDO less than once/month -- this is my home namely b/c of the great people I have come to know and the fact that we talk about both OC and CC issues (among others). Theirs is much more single-issue-centered... which may be their strength, though, in their level of political activism, I'll admit.

Whatever happened to that idea of joining the 2 boards via a common legal-thread... did that ever get anywhere???

 

[thx997303]

You might not like having to adjust to each of the threads.

 

[bane]

You might not like having to adjust to each of the threads.

:?: