| Author | Post |
|---|
PaulB
Opt-Out Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 06:59 am |
|
l'd like to point out that there is a bit of over-reaction in this thread.
Yes, the AG is an idiot and/or liar. What else is new?
As to Cody's regulation, it is actually less of an infringement than the state statute allows them to have written (even if it is more of an infringement than the constitution allows). Note, to be convicted of this, you have to have an "avowed" (openly stated) purpose of raising hell or harming someone. To beat it, all you have to do, is not say in front of witnesses that you are going to kill someone with your gun!
I have OC'ed many times in Cody. No problem at all. A friend was harassed in Powell but it was just a case of police ignorance. Yes, OC implies an episode now and then of educating cops, even in Wyoming (Wyoming cops are often hired from outside the state). That's all. The sky is not falling.
Last edited on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 07:02 am by PaulB
|
MatieA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
| hi all, I just found this forum after being told that the town I live in (Pine Bluffs) has a law against open-carry, I will be checking into this as I have oc'ed several times with no incident and have a WY CCP. This seems a violation of the state constitution, and the preemption law. I may just have to test this out if I find it to be true.
|
PaulB
Opt-Out Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
Go down to city hall and ask for a copy of the ordinance, and post it here (I looked on the Internet but they must not have it there). It probably is like Cody's; that is, you really didn't violate it. Find the cop that gave you a bad time and have a friendly talk with him about it.
This sort of thing works in small-town Wyoming, usually.
|
MatieA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
PaulB wrote: Go down to city hall and ask for a copy of the ordinance, and post it here (I looked on the Internet but they must not have it there). It probably is like Cody's; that is, you really didn't violate it. Find the cop that gave you a bad time and have a friendly talk with him about it.
This sort of thing works in small-town Wyoming, usually.
Small-town politics; I had to wait for the correct person to be working to get this.
|
PaulB
Opt-Out Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 6th, 2009 05:49 pm |
|
Wow, that might have come out of California! 
Subsection (c) does not allow any exceptions for self defense. Clearly unconstitutional. Not even allowing BB guns to be shot is pretty extreme.
Subsection (d) does not allow any exceptions even if you have a state permit to carry concealed.
Is this a recent addition to the ordinances? If so, I'd find out who created it, and run against him next election. You should be a shoo-in.
It probably was written decades ago, is my guess. You could petition the council to remove it since it is so much in violation of both the constitution and the pre-emption statutes. Otherwise, ignore it. If someone tries to arrest you for it, see if you can sue for false arrest and make some money out of it (you could use that point to show the council why the ordinance should be repealed - save the council from a lawsuit.)
If the council won't move on it, that is like many government agencies I have seen before. State passes a law, and municipalities ignore it. Laws are only for us peons, it seems. Well, why pay attention to such a law? I wouldn't.
|
opusd2
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 07:11 am |
|
Well, chances are I saw indiscretions as posted above when I lived in Cheyenne. I won't mention which ones, but they are as easy as shooting a BB gun to figure out.
Then again, the area I lived in Cheyenne was quite an interesting area as far as neighbors are concerned. Chances are my old neighbor still breaks as many as he can in his age. He was a good guy...
|
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 11:48 am |
|
If you will read that carefully, it says you can't carry any of those things "for the avowed purpose" of harming someone!
So, don't tell a saloon full of people that you are going to kill Black Bart and then go stomping down the street armed and looking for him.
Silly to write a separate law about that, but politicians have to find something to do, don't you know?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 02:19 pm |
|
Anubis wrote: Given the aforementioned ambiguity, maybe OCDO's "open carry" map should show Wyoming as orange rather than yellow. (Mike?)
Maybe I missed it - but I don't see any hole in the preemption statute cited above - yhe std grant of authority to localities in WY remains limited by preemption as to mere possession of guns.
|
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 02:34 pm |
|
That's right, Mike. Several of the members of a club I belong to have had a few problems in Cheyenne or Laramie, but it's always cops who do not understand Wyoming OC and so far it's been straightened out fast, with the cops learning that they can't hassle law abiding OC folks. The only people who would call in a MWG thing are tourists, and we don't get much of that either.
One incident in Powell was potentially a real problem, but it worked out good too.
The police here just do not generally have the gestapo mind set they do so many other places, and only those being hired from other places tend to have the problems. We're educating them as fast as we can. 
|
PaulB
Opt-Out Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 08:31 pm |
|
If you will read that carefully, it says you can't carry any of those things "for the avowed purpose" of harming someone!
Well, that's true for section (e), open carry. In that respect it is similar to Cody's ordinance, and not in violation of the state pre-emption statute as far as I can tell.
However, subsection (d), concealed carry, is clear and simple. You may not carry concealed. Subsection (b) provides an exception for cops, but not for people with concealed carry permits. Thus subsection (d) is in violation of the state pre-emption statute.
Also subsection (f) seems unconstitutional, as the constitution protects the right to bear arms, not just firearms.
Finally subsection (c) does not give an exception for self-defense. If you shoot a home invader, you can be charged under that subsection. Regulating discharge of a weapon, to the extent of eliminating self-defense, is certainly a violation of the state pre-emption statute, as well as being unconstitutional.
In general, the ordinance is poorly written and repetitive.
Last edited on Sat Feb 7th, 2009 08:41 pm by PaulB
|
MatieA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 09:41 pm |
|
I will be attending the next town meeting that I can attend, and will be bringing up several issues on this. A few of you have pointed out things that I had not noticed. I was told (by Law Enforcement here) that concealed carry (with a permit) was the only way you could carry in town limits, and that open carry would be a $750.00 fine and an automatic court appearance. As I stated before I have been open-carrying for the seven years that I've lived here with no incident, and I'm hoping to resolve this without being arrested, but I am not going to stop carrying just because someone can't read.
On a side note:
A very interesting result of having people read (e):
my kids ages 10, 13, read it as only being allowed to conceal carry
all adults (so far) have read it as meaning that you can open-carry as long as you are not doing so with the purpose of hurting someone.
Maybe our cops, and town leaders have the mind set of younger children?
Last edited on Sat Feb 7th, 2009 09:45 pm by MatieA
|
bobcat
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Great Lakes, USA |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
As a potential future resident of WY, Thank You MatieA for taking the initiative on this issue. Please be sure and let us know how this turns out.
If they don't see the error of their ways, maybe folks here can help with another more legalistic approach. There are a lot of folks here with the skills and connections to get this sorted out.
The more individual 'fiefdoms' that get away with these kinds of unconstitutional, illegal and just plain poorly written 'ordinances' must be stopped, as this is how the anti liberty crowd works, incremental. -Be it an old out of date ordinance to lean on or reworded liberal tripe and sheer foolishness.
|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 05:15 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Anubis wrote: Given the aforementioned ambiguity, maybe OCDO's "open carry" map should show Wyoming as orange rather than yellow. (Mike?)
Maybe I missed it - but I don't see any hole in the preemption statute cited above - yhe std grant of authority to localities in WY remains limited by preemption as to mere possession of guns.
My italics above.
The preemption statute does not address carrying, however, unlike for instance, Ohio's. I believe that is the hole.Last edited on Mon Feb 9th, 2009 05:16 pm by BB62
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 05:34 pm |
|
BB62 wrote: Mike wrote: Anubis wrote: Given the aforementioned ambiguity, maybe OCDO's "open carry" map should show Wyoming as orange rather than yellow. (Mike?)
Maybe I missed it - but I don't see any hole in the preemption statute cited above - yhe std grant of authority to localities in WY remains limited by preemption as to mere possession of guns.
My italics above.
The preemption statute does not address carrying, however, unlike for instance, Ohio's. I believe that is the hole.
it covers possession, right? That included carriage.
|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 05:44 pm |
|
Mike wrote: (referring to the preemption statute)...it covers possession, right? That included carriage.
I don't know Wyoming law, but not necessarily. Since legislatures can and do define things in different ways than us "common" folk, one never knows.
|
AB
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 06:51 pm |
|
The real point is W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), its a read between the lines thing.
When this legislation was crafted they didn't get specific and left us wide open.
Except as authorized by W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), no city, town or county shall authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use or possession of firearms, weapons and ammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter.
(xviii) Regulate, prevent or suppress riots, disturbances, disorderly assemblies or parades, or any other conduct which disturbs or jeopardizes the public health, safety, peace or morality, in any public or private place.
This is the dangerous part of legislation that went into this code
W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), gives city's and towns to write their own code as they see fit.
Just read (xviii) it brushes a broad stroke that is up for interpretation (or any other conduct which disturbs or jeopardizes the public health, safety, peace or morality, in any public or private place)
(or any other conduct; public or private place) even in your home?
This is a giant loophole that trumps our preemptive law.
On the subject of Pine Bluffs they clearly took advantage of this loophole,
Section (e) the police would have to prove "intent or avowed purpose of injuring any person" this is dangerous because if you used your weapon in self defense they could:
1. Charge you with discharge of a weapon in city limits.
2. They could now use it to prove you wanted to injure another person.
Section (g) states that No person shall possess a firearm within the town who:
(iv) Is a member of a subversive organization. (who would define what a subversive organization is?)
(h) This section states they don't need a search warrant (wow the British all over again)
This is flat out Un-Constitutional and Dangerous
Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners Association
http://www.wyominggunowners.org
Last edited on Mon Feb 9th, 2009 11:24 pm by AB
|
PaulB
Opt-Out Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10th, 2009 12:33 am |
|
Well, yes and no.
If you assume the people using and enforcing and interpreting the laws are reasonable and decent people, then there is no loophole. In such a case it would make perfect sense that municipalities can do things like stop riots.
If you assume the people using and enforcing and interpreting the laws are imperious, elitist bastards, then as with any other provision of law, black can be made to seem white, and white black. In that case there is no pre-emption in reality at all.
However, it's not for us just to sit here and passively consume whatever style of law these guys wish to dish out for us. That would be stupid, not to mention lazy. The point is, we need to let them know it's not a good idea to act like imperious, elitist bastards. And that there will be a cost if they do. One could imagine all sorts of costs, starting with letters to the editor, flyers, running for office against them, all the way up to... whatever. I'm not suggesting threats actually; I'm sure these guys already know the story. But you at least have to let them know you don't accept what is clearly wrong in the ordinance.
The really, really nice thing about Wyoming is that it is a small town state. The powers that be just can't be that isolated from the rest of us. So they have a pretty strong incentive to be reasonable and decent people. And not surprisingly, most of them are like that. This ain't Chicago.
In the meantime, Matie, treat them in a friendly and decent way, when you go to those hearings. Works better than the alternative (read "How to Win Friends & Influence People" by Dale Carnegie).
Last edited on Tue Feb 10th, 2009 12:36 am by PaulB
|
AB
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10th, 2009 02:37 am |
|
I personally spoke with an officer at Pine Bluffs Police Dept and he told me that they would indeed arrest anyone that open carrys in Pine Bluffs city limits and there would be a $750 fine.
From my conversation with the officer it appears that he was told to tell people this, another interesting thing is he said he has never arrested anyone for this offense.
I had him site the city code and reviewed it with him and told him it could very easily be challenged, at that point he referred me to the city attorney which appears to be a private firm.
I contacted the the attorney and spoke with one of the partners and I was told another individual would get a call back tomorrow.
I believe they will have no option other than interpret the law properly, but we will see what happens when the city attorney gets back to me.
Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners Association
http://www.wyominggunowners.org
Last edited on Tue Feb 10th, 2009 05:00 am by AB
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10th, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
BB62 wrote: Mike wrote: (referring to the preemption statute)...it covers possession, right? That included carriage.
I don't know Wyoming law, but not necessarily. Since legislatures can and do define things in different ways than us "common" folk, one never knows.
If there is no statutory definition the plain meaning applies - possess includes carrying - carrying is a subsent of possession. Post Wyoming's more strict definition of possession if there is one.
|
BB62
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10th, 2009 03:23 pm |
|
Mike wrote: If there is no statutory definition the plain meaning applies - possess includes carrying - carrying is a subsent of possession. Post Wyoming's more strict definition of possession if there is one.
Subsent? Do you mean subset?
Possess: my usage of the term, and the sources I have checked use words like "have, hold, own, control".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess
From what source do you derive one of the "plain meanings" of possess to be "to carry"?
|
Current time is 01:00 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
|
|
