Color of Law?

Discuss issues regarding open carry.

Re: Color of Law?

Postby JoeSparky » Mon 18 Aug 2014 9:33 pm

Thanks all. Probably send with suggested changes after a couple more days. Your thoughts and suggestions are appreciated.
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

Re: Color of Law?

Postby JoeSparky » Fri 22 Aug 2014 1:40 pm

Final copy as delivered----


To whom it may concern,

On July 26, 2013 at approximately 0934 hours I was stopped by Officer 7J21 for a traffic infraction which I did commit and have since dealt with in the courts.
This writing is about the unprofessional manner in which officer 7J21 during this non-consensual encounter attempted to COERCE me under COLOR of LAW regarding how HE thought I SHOULD exercise a US and Utah State Constitutionally protected right. I will continue to refer to this officer by “7J21” in this communication as I am unable to decipher his name as signed upon the citation.
I was LAWFULLY openly carrying a holstered firearm upon my hip while operating a motorcycle trike. Due to the design of the vehicle I was operating, he was most likely unaware of this. So upon his request of my DL I informed him of my firearm location and my need to reach past to my right rear pocket to retrieve my DL. At this point he asked if I had a Concealed Carry Permit. I responded, “I was not aware that I needed a permit to OPEN CARRY in or on a vehicle”, knowing full well that in Utah as long as I am lawfully in possession of the vehicle (it was registered to me) and being 18 years or older (I am) it was fully legal to carry a handgun openly, concealed, loaded, or unloaded within or on the vehicle regardless of IF I even HAD a permit to conceal.
After some limited negotiation where he initially asked if he could remove my firearm “for HIS safety” and I responded we were both SAFEST if the firearm where to remain just where it was--- holstered on my hip. He had me slide slightly to my left while griping the hand grips on the motorcycle and while standing slightly he removed my wallet from my right side rear pocket of my pants. At this point I returned to a seated position upon my motorcycle trike.
Then, without offering to hand me my wallet or asking me to remove the DL he removed my DL and then handed the wallet to me. As he was doing this he was expressing to me his belief and opinion of the high level of risk and danger I was putting myself into for openly carrying a firearm and strongly suggested that I conceal “for your safety”, referring to me.
I declined saying, “Isn’t Utah great in that a Concealed Firearms Permit ALLOWS concealment but doesn’t require it” or very nearly these words.
At this point he returned to his patrol vehicle with my DL and a few moments later a second officer took position to my right side and slightly behind about 6-8 feet away. He never identified himself to me. But did attempt to engage me in some small talk. At this point I had my arms across my chest and I was leaning back against my backrest.
Upon returning to my left side, Officer 7J21 continued to express his opinion upon how I SHOULD properly carry a firearm especially since I was not a Law Enforcement Officer and was not wearing any protective vest.
He then presented me with the citation and explained what I must do to take care of it and the options I had related to traffic school.
While I am slightly disturbed that 7J21 would remove my DL from my wallet without handing it to me to do, my biggest complaint is the attempt at OPINION ENFORCEMENT related to HIS opinion on how I should carry my already Lawfully carried and possessed handgun.
I would refer you to Lund vs Salt Lake City Corporation as found at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/ ... -12-04.pdf
in which under footnote 9 From pgs 14 and 15
“9By itself, mere possession of a firearm in public is not unlawful and may well represent the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, §6 of the Utah Constitution (recognizing the “individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes,” subject to the power of the Legislature to define the “lawful use of arms.”). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008) (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”); see also Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-500 to 530 (2003 & Supp. 2008) (Utah Firearms Act). In Utah, the carrying of a concealed weapon on one’s person in public is a matter of State licensing and regulation, and is routinely permitted pursuant to the applicable State statute. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-5-701 to 711 (Supp. 2008). The legislature has explicitly denied local governmental entities such as Salt Lake City the power to limit or restrict possession of a firearm on public property: “Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity”
“9(...continued)
may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.” Utah Code Ann. § 53-5a-102 (Supp. 2008); see University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 2006 UT 51, ¶ 11, 144 P.3d 1109, 1113 (observing that the enactment of § 53-5a-102 in 2004 “dramatically altered the legal landscape, rendering it clear that Utah’s firearms statutes are universally applicable”). The legislature has authorized municipalities only to “regulate and prevent the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks or any other dangerous or combustible material.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-47 (2007).
As articulated by the Utah Legislature, public policy in this State may fairly be read to condone and even
encourage gun ownership and the lawful possession and carrying of firearms in public places. Salt Lake City’s asserted governmental interest in its police officers’ response to a report of a “man with a gun” in a public park cannot be weighed in isolation from this oft-emphasized public policy. In that context, there may well be more individual constitutional rights at stake than the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Please note this particular case was heard and decided prior to the most recent US Supreme Court decision against Chicago that affirmed we each have a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms that the STATES MUST ACCOMMODATE!

Officer 7J21 had no right or authority under ANY law to support and justify HIS attempt under Color Of Law to impose HIS OPINION--- NOT LAW, upon me in the manner in which I choose to exercise a Constitutionally Protected Right. He was acting in an official capacity, NOT as a private citizen! Indeed, he was acting as an agent of the Government and as a Pleasant Grove Police Officer during a traffic stop, a non-consensual encounter. This is NOT the place or time to IMPOSE HIS OPINION upon my choice of how or what manner in which I choose to exercise my Constitutionally PROTECTED rights. His actions in this regard WERE unprofessional and ANY attempt under COLOR OF LAW to violate or coerce a person to give up their rights IS a VIOLATION of Federal Law.
I have no idea if the behavior and actions I’ve described are endemic within the Pleasant Grove Police Department as I have had very little interaction with the PG Police Dept. And as such I formally request that all PG Officers receive specific training related to COLOR of LAW (opinion enforcement), Coercion as related to Color of Law and Civil or Constitutional Rights, and lawful carry and possession of firearms in/on a vehicle with or without a permit to conceal. I, also, request to be provided copies of this training as provided to the officers and department. (Gramma Request)
Thank You for your prompt attention to this matter.
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

Re: Color of Law?

Postby Daeyel » Thu 28 Aug 2014 10:59 am

One concern re: the first paragraph.

People who capitalize numerous words are often written off as nutcases. it comes across wrong. next time, i suggest italics?

Also, in response to Althor - I DO have a problem with him expressing an opinion. When he is 'on the clock' so to speak, he is an agent of the State of Utah, with powers unparalleled. His opinions, so expressed, carry the full weight of the authority of the State of Utah which he is in uniform as representing. Indeed, it can be said that he is not expressing an opinion, but the will of the State.
For this reason, police officers must be expressly careful to state their opinion as being such.

It is amazing how much people will look to an authority figure, any authority figure. I had a renter ask me a question on renters rights. despite the fact that I stated that it was my opinion, and that I was not completely sure, they took me at my word. After all, I am a landlord, I must know the rental laws backwards and forwards, right?

We all know someone who says something like 'My (relative friend neighbor home teacher professor) is a cop and he said....'

These errors of opinion need to go away, and if that means we educate them through formal complaint, then that's what needs to be done if other methods are not working.
Remember also, officers will reflect the opinions and feelings of their superiors.
Provo police chief is ex LAPD. I'd be surprised if his personal opinion reflects the overall consensus of the citizens.
Only one individual can be 100% relied upon to be in your presence at all times and in all places to defend you and your family.
Act accordingly.
Daeyel
Sniper
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue 20 Oct 2009 1:00 pm

Re: Color of Law?

Postby althor » Thu 28 Aug 2014 12:28 pm

Daeyel wrote:Also, in response to Althor - I DO have a problem with him expressing an opinion. When he is 'on the clock' so to speak, he is an agent of the State of Utah, with powers unparalleled. His opinions, so expressed, carry the full weight of the authority of the State of Utah which he is in uniform as representing. Indeed, it can be said that he is not expressing an opinion, but the will of the State.


Can you provide something to back that up? I'm not buying it...
User avatar
althor
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu 11 Oct 2007 10:50 am
Location: West Jordan

Re: Color of Law?

Postby UtahJarhead » Thu 28 Aug 2014 12:41 pm

If a cop tells you, "I would like if you stayed here," the courts have ruled that it is a detainment as any normal person would feel that they are no longer free to leave.
DO NOT talk to cops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol/Rifle Instructor
Cub Master
Art Scheel
User avatar
UtahJarhead
Top Shot
 
Posts: 6570
Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Ogden, UT

Re: Color of Law?

Postby JoeSparky » Thu 28 Aug 2014 1:34 pm

althor wrote:
Daeyel wrote:Also, in response to Althor - I DO have a problem with him expressing an opinion. When he is 'on the clock' so to speak, he is an agent of the State of Utah, with powers unparalleled. His opinions, so expressed, carry the full weight of the authority of the State of Utah which he is in uniform as representing. Indeed, it can be said that he is not expressing an opinion, but the will of the State.


Can you provide something to back that up? I'm not buying it...

The officer is entitled to his opinion, just like you or I or anyone else is entitled to an opinion. What he does not have is the right to impose his opinion (not Law) on anyone else. As an officer during a none consensual encounter (traffic stop) he has NO RIGHT to express his opinion related to how one exercises a Constitutionally Protected right, for any other reason NOT RELATED TO THE STOP. It delays the time of my release from detainment so it steals my time, it steals the time from his employer (police department) and from the tax payor's who have funded the department.

If I were to force someone to the side of the road to engage in telling them i don't like Bright yellow vehicles, or they SHOULD be driving a Chevette, or a Skateboard I would be in the wrong--- even more so for the officer.

In my instant case the officer did have justification for the stop! He did not and does not have justification in attempting to coerce me to alter the manner in which I express my Constitutionally Protected Rights. It does not matter how polite he was, or even if he smiled while say it, or even crouched in the terms of "you don't wear a protective vest and I am just concerned for your safety"---- HE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY, OR POWER, OR RIGHT to waste my time any more than what is required to complete the business of the stop! Now, any conversation that occurs after the stop is clearly done, where I am no longer detained is a different matter. But tell me, how does a vehicle operator KNOW just when the non-consensual encounter is complete and when the consensual one has begun? Even once your DL and Registration is handed to you, the emergency lights are still operating of the police cruiser and the law requires that when those lights are operating behind me, I am required to pull to the right, stop, and then proceed after the emergency vehicle has passed me.

You may disagree--- I get that! I don't understand it, but I get it.
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

Re: Color of Law?

Postby DaKnife » Sat 30 Aug 2014 12:13 pm

:agree:
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Previous

Return to Open Carry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron