Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just curious.... If I wanted to, could I legally walk around downtown with an AK-47 strapped on my back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
hamm said:
Just curious.... If I wanted to, could I legally walk around downtown with an AK-47 strapped on my back?
I believe as long as it was not loaded (unless you have a concealed permit) then it could be loaded. I would however, highly advise against doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Yes, the line between legally open carrying an 'assault' (I prefer 'anti-assault') rifle and disorderly conduct (or even assault) is VERY thin in the eyes of some LEOs and prosecutors. Legal yes, but you might have to hire an attorney to prove it as such. And if your attorney succeeded, it's quite likely that there would then be people lining up at the legislature to get open carry made illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
So is there any difference between handguns and long guns as far as Utah code is concerned? Don't worry, I'm not planning on taking my AK out on the street. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
hamm said:
So is there any difference between handguns and long guns as far as Utah code is concerned?
No. They are all considered 'weapons'. The only time that barrel length is an issue is if it is 'sawed off' shotgun (<18") or rifle (<16"). Also, non-CFP holders can concealed carry while hunting, as long as the barrel length is 4" or greater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Yes, but you might be setting yourself up for disorderly comduct or disturbing the peace depending on your demeanor & the disposition of the LEO contacting you. Maybe some unfavorable RKBA press as well.

I wouldn't recommend it. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
I sure as heck wouldn't want to be the test case for this.

But if you do it and get arrested for it, I'll come down and hold up a sign saying :

FREE HAMM!

(with purchase of eggs and a side dish)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
I would love to be the test case for "evil rifle" open carry! :twisted: Unfortunately, I do not have the time or cash it takes to defend myself against a law that does not exist. I have already exposed myself to becoming a test case for OC in a school though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Ruger Collector said:
Yes, but you might be setting yourself up for disorderly comduct or disturbing the peace depending on your demeanor & the disposition of the LEO contacting you. Maybe some unfavorable RKBA press as well.

I wouldn't recommend it. :(
They can't do the "disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace" because it's legal to carry a rifle/shotgun openly.

76-10-505. Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:
(a) in or on a vehicle;
(b) on any public street; or
(c) in a posted prohibited area.
(2) A violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor.

Amended by Chapter 328, 1990 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_0C034.ZIP 1,712 Bytes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page

Last revised: Thursday, July 19, 2007

76-10-509.4. Prohibition of possession of certain weapons by minors.
(1) A minor under 18 years of age may not possess a handgun.
(2) Except as provided by federal law, a minor under 18 years of age may not possess the following:
(a) a sawed-off rifle or sawed-off shotgun; or
(b) a fully automatic weapon.
(3) Any person who violates Subsection (1) is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor upon the first offense; and
(b) a class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense.
(4) Any person who violates Subsection (2) is guilty of a third degree felony.

Amended by Chapter 80, 1995 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_0C040.ZIP 1,897 Bytes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page

Last revised: Thursday, July 19, 2007
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
UTOC-45-44 said:
Ruger Collector said:
Yes, but you might be setting yourself up for disorderly comduct or disturbing the peace depending on your demeanor & the disposition of the LEO contacting you. Maybe some unfavorable RKBA press as well.

I wouldn't recommend it. :(
They can't do the "disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace" because it's legal to carry a rifle/shotgun openly.
Let's take a look at an applicable ordinance:

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.

Amended by Chapter 20, 1999 General Session
Whether or not you intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or alarm is subjective to officer and/or witness interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to open carry. But LEOs have plenty of leeway to harrass you for it. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Ruger Collector said:
......Whether or not you intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or alarm is subjective to officer and/or witness interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to open carry. But LEOs have plenty of leeway to harrass you for it. :(
If that is the case. Those people running around with all those tattoos and piercing do it intentionally and they cause me, a part of the public, great annoyance and alarm, ergo I guess I can call the police on them can't I.

At least I can by your logic.

Your logic may apply a lot of places, but I think that most of them are not in Utah

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
If that is the case. Those people running around with all those tattoos and piercing do it intentionally and they cause me, a part of the public, great annoyance and alarm, ergo I guess I can call the police on them can't I.
How would you argue he had intent to annoy you when he got the tattoo of his ex-wife 8 years ago? But yes now you see how the law is flawed, and not in our favor.

Tarzan1888 said:
Your logic may apply a lot of places, but I think that most of them are not in Utah
Tarzan
It's not my logic. It's the letter of the law (as opposed to spirit of the law) logic that a lot of LEO subscribe to. Haven't you ever been pulled over for speeding and said something like "but I was only going 6 mph over" and had the officer reply "it's still 6 mph over the limit"? Exactly the same logic I used there. I bet Hunter could shed some light on this.

But seriously, what do you think would happen if my daughter and I were to take these bunny-slayers for a stroll in West Valley?

We'd be perfectly legal, but you KNOW we would be swarmed by LEO (maybe even SWAT) and possibly shot by a really nervous rookie or an over zealous CCW.

It's just not worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Ruger Collector said:
Tarzan1888 said:
Your logic may apply a lot of places, but I think that most of them are not in Utah
Tarzan
.....It's not my logic. It's the letter of the law (as opposed to spirit of the law) logic that a lot of LEO subscribe to.....
Actually the letter of the law is that it is only ILLEGAL to carry a loaded firearm on any city street, which does not apply to a person with a permit.

This makes it legal, as it is not forbidden to carry an un-loaded firearm, and we know the definition of loaded in Utah, and this restriction is lifted with a permit.

You are invoking the supposed spirit of the law which has no bearing.

I have carried un-loaded firearms, both long and short all over streets of Utah and I have done the same with loaded ones.

I personally don't want to incite anyone with my carrying of guns, long or short, and carry for protection only, in the manner that best suits my needs. I don't intend to do anything more than to protect.

As for my comment about piercing and tattoos, I know many people who made a mistake and wish they had never got theirs, but I know many others that do it as a statement. It was to the latter to which I referred. I used that reference to illustrate that just because you personally don’t like something, it doesn’t give you the right to summon the police and have someone given a bad time, but I think you already knew that.



Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
Actually the letter of the law is that it is only ILLEGAL to carry a loaded firearm on any city street, which does not apply to a person with a permit.

This makes it legal, as it is not forbidden to carry an un-loaded firearm, and we know the definition of loaded in Utah, and this restriction is lifted with a permit.

You are invoking the supposed spirit of the law which has no bearing.
Wearing a scary black rifle in public, knowing that the first liberal who sees you will panic and call the police, who will in turn put every school within 10 miles into lockdown isn't intending to cause public alarm?

Probably not. But it would be for the courts, not the LEO to decide.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law, he is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but possibly not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law, he is doing what the authors of the law intended, though possibly not adhering to the literal wording.
Law enforcement officers are generally letter of the law, that's their job. They enforce the law, interpretation of the author's intent and applicability to a certain case is left to the Judges and lawyers.

A prime example would be Duchesne County LEO (Without going into the taser incident). They are notoriously staunch letter of the law enforcers, and WILL pull you over for going 2 mph over the limit (even though the author's intent was safety, and the conditions may be perfectly safe to travel at that speed). Anybody who's lived in or driven through that county knows that if you're not going slightly below the posted limit (speedometers can be very inaccurate, when I tested my truck against a gps I found the speedometer to be consistently 10% below actual speed) you're asking for trouble.

Another fine example would be "A well regulated militia...", we're still waiting for the courts to clarify the spirit of that law.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Ruger Collector said:
speedometers can be very inaccurate, when I tested my truck against a gps I found the speedometer to be consistently 10% below actual speed
While I'm not debating anything else in your post, nor even your premise that "speedometers can be very inaccurate", I doubt very much the grounds of your premise: that a GPS can demonstrate a speedometer's inaccuracy. Most retail GPS units aren't all that accurate themselves (they're great, don't get me wrong, I love mine -- but anyone who has ever been "Geocaching" knows they have a good margin for error. Not to mention the fact that a speedometer has a direct virtually instantaneous connection to the wheels of the vehicle while a GPS has a radio-wave connection to a very distant satellite that, regardless of the speed of light, introduces a time delay due to the various factors of tracking the signal, etc.

GPS's are fantastic tools, but unless you having a MIL-SPEC or one of comparable grade, I doubt it should be relied upon as an absolutely accurate measurement tool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
bane said:
Ruger Collector said:
speedometers can be very inaccurate, when I tested my truck against a gps I found the speedometer to be consistently 10% below actual speed
While I'm not debating anything else in your post, nor even your premise that "speedometers can be very inaccurate", I doubt very much the grounds of your premise: that a GPS can demonstrate a speedometer's inaccuracy. Most retail GPS units aren't all that accurate themselves (they're great, don't get me wrong, I love mine -- but anyone who has ever been "Geocaching" knows they have a good margin for error. Not to mention the fact that a speedometer has a direct virtually instantaneous connection to the wheels of the vehicle while a GPS has a radio-wave connection to a very distant satellite that, regardless of the speed of light, introduces a time delay due to the various factors of tracking the signal, etc.

GPS's are fantastic tools, but unless you having a MIL-SPEC or one of comparable grade, I doubt it should be relied upon as an absolutely accurate measurement tool.
I'd take my Garmin any day over the units the Army made me use. As would a relative of mine who's deployed in the sandbox today working as an interpreter for an SF team (he had me send him one).

But think about the speedometer, it's only measuring the final output RPM from the transmission. It doesn't correct itself for variables like tire tread wear, inflation or the vehicle owner installing a different size of tires all together (as was my case), all of these affect the final drive ratio, and speedometer accuracy. Like the mechanical RPM measurements sent to the speedometer, the signal from the satellites measured by the GPS is constant, delayed but constant.

But most importantly, the tests had consistent results: At 20 the GPS read 22, at 60 it read 66 etc., and these results were also concordant with shorter comparisons done with my speedometer and those radar speed limit signs. If you were me, would you believe my speedometer or the GPS?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
I know this is kind of off on a tangent but with stock tires your cars speed can vary up to 8mph just between having new tires vs. old tires (more likely is 2-4mph for the standard car. Deep lugged tires will have a bigger affect than street tires and the larger the tire (31+) the more they vary).
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top