Posted on 12/26/2013 9:36:02 AM PST by marktwain
| Hot Springs Arkansas Act 746 Open Carry Walk |
Younes said Britland had specifically asked him if he would be arrested in Harrison for carrying a gun.This does not sound much like the rule of law. If the person charged with enforcing the law essentially says: "It depends", how is someone to know if they are violating the law or not? After all, this is a pretty simple question. Glenn Britland is not asking what happens if he points a gun at someone. He is not asking what happens if he trespasses. He is trying to find out a simple thing. If he openly carries a gun, will he be arrested? Attorney Younes tries to avoid the question by pushing it onto the state:
He said that each case would be handled individually. If an officer cites a citizen for carrying a gun, the citation would go to Younes as city prosecutor and the matter would be handled through normal procedures.
Younes told the Daily Times that the city technically has no position on Act 746, which is a law passed by the state Legislature. He also said that because it’s a state law it will be up to the state to clarify it, not the city.But, Younes is in charge of enforcing the law, so he will have to make the decisions on the ground.
Stan Witt, director of the Arkansas State Police, had this to say: “It’s kind of been twisted where that’s construed as open carry: You can just strap a gun on while you’re going down the road, and you can get out and go in a convenience store with your gun whether you have a concealed carry permit or not. That’s not true.” He added that anybody who tries to carry a gun openly in such a circumstance will be arrested.Since then, numerous open carry marches have been organized by Arkansas Carry. No one has been arrested during these marches. It is unclear what Stan Witt, quoted above, would charge someone with in the circumstances that he described. Perhaps he would charge them with disorderly conduct, as happened many times in Wisconsin while Wisconsin residents were educating the Wisconsin Police about the legality of open carry in that state.
Previously the statute, A.C.A. § 5-73-120, defined the offense of carrying a weapon illegally as having a handgun on their person or in their vehicle “readily available for use with a purpose to employ” the weapon against a person. Altes’ amendment changed this to “’readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ” the weapon against a person.Given the threats made by Stan Witt of Arkansas State Police, and the misdirection by AG McDaniels, it seems reasonable to ask City Attorney Younes how he is going to handle things in Harrison. When Glenn Britland does not obtain any useful information from the City Attorney, he takes his question to the City Council. But here, again, City Attorney Younes advises the aldermen not to take Britland seriously, and they adjourn without answering his question.
According to Hiland, the addition of the words “to attempt to unlawfully employ” “fundamentally alters the character and nature of the statute.”
Younes told aldermen that it appeared Britland had a personal agenda and “maybe the city has better things to do.”I can see that a small town Attorney might not want to be on the record one way or another, but that is not what he is being paid for. People should be able to determine if they will be subject to arrest for a simple act, especially one that seems to be protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions.
Britland responded that it’s always good for government to stand up and take a position, but aldermen moved to adjourn the meeting without further comment.
Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5So, is City Attorney Younes just trying to stay out of hot water, refusing to do what he is being paid for, or both?
The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.
But, if you are doing nothing wrong, are you permitted to violently resist unlawful arrest? I bet the “courts” would say no.
bookmark
See US v Cruikshank for your answer.
As I have read the law, you are not allowed to violently resist arrest, unless you have reason to believe that your life or bodily integrity are being illegally put at risk by the officer/officers involved.
It is a pretty high standard to meet, but a few have done so successfully.
Seems to me the good people of Arkansas need to stage a march on Harrison with several thousand people carrying arms peaceably and openly. Maybe then the idjits who run the town will get the message.
If you do resist then don't think half-measures will suffice.
You'd better be prepared to go to war because the armed gang that wears badges will most certainly go to war against you. The right or wrong of your argument will be irrelevant to them. All they will want is to kill whoever had the nerve to resist their power.
19 April 1775
John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900)
Three policemen in South Dakota attempted, under verbal orders, to arrest another policeman for an alleged violation of law when no charge had been formally made against him and no warrant had issued for his arrest. Those attempting to make the arrest carried arms, and when he refused to go, they tried to oblige him to do so by force. He fired and killed one of them. He was arrested, tried for murder, and convicted.
...
“At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right.”
...
“ And yet the charge presented the plaintiff in error to the jury as one having no right to make any resistance to an arrest by these officers, although he had been guilty of no offense, and it gave the jury to understand that the officers, in making the attempt, had the right to use all necessary force to overcome any and all opposition that might be made to the arrest, even to the extent of killing the individual whom they desired to take into their custody. Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.
The plaintiff in error was undoubtedly prejudiced by this error in the charge, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be Reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.”
The City Attorney has given up his ability to prosecute open carry.
Keyword “unlawfully”. The only recognized official arbiters are police, whether correct or incorrect. The decision rests with the District Attorney. Final judgment by a judge in a court of law.
IOW, they can make up anything they want to. You have to prove through law and impartial judgment they are wrong.
Disgusting.
“...with the intent to use the weapon unlawfully...”
This totally bogus. So the LEO stops ya, makes a determination that you had intent, perhaps by getting snarky by telling him what the law is, arrests you, and then off you go to court to get exonerated. This law should be void for vagueness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.