Calculated to alarm

[A-R]

Another thought from a different perspective. Let's say the open carry agitators preferred interpretation is correct and what they are doing does not rise to the level of "calculated to alarm"?

What then is an LEO to do when the continue receiving MWAG 911 calls?

I realize the hardcore 2A civil libertarians will strongly disagree with this approach, but why not treat these calls like a trespassing call? Issue the open carrier an official "warning" that their actions ARE causing alarm and if they continue or repeat such actions knowing this information then the LEO will have no choice but to conclude that they are doing so in a "calculated" manner and arrest them for 42.01(a)(8).

They can give them a trespass warning for that business but a city-wide trespass warning seems like a Jim Crow relic. Honestly, a law enforcement agency that respects the constitution would treat a "man with a gun" call a lot like they treat a "man with a turban" call.

You're misunderstanding my post. I was not saying warn them for trespassing. I was saying warn them for disorderly conduct in the same manner LEOs typically warn first for trespassing.

[K.Mooneyham]

But should I get arrested for carrying a Mosin Nagant (hard to find a case for such a long rifle) from my truck to my house if I have to park on the curb, and a neighbor is "alarmed" by the sight of the rifle? There has GOT to be more to "calculated to alarm" than just someone getting upset.

When my son was working security something along those lines happened to his boss. His boss was cleaning guns at his kitchen table, and some hysterical liberal who had immigrated from an anti-gun state called the police to report a man with a gun. While the only consequence was a visit by the police it's a indication of what anyone seen anywhere with a gun might face from such random hysteria.

The real reason this issue goes round and round is folks like to make arguments about situations that have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. These two post are a great example. I am going to assume I don't need to explain why.

No, please, explain. I gather that you absolutely cannot stand the "mall-ninjas" and the "open-carry at Starbucks" types, and I can understand why. However, the issue at hand is that the phrase "calculated to alarm" is open to interpretation, and it also seems that it can be driven by someone with a fear of firearms calling law enforcement because they have become "alarmed" even though nothing happened to them. California and other states didn't always have the draconian and over-the-top firearms laws as they do now; neither did those laws all get passed in one fell swoop. They came about bit-by-bit as some folks said things such as "no one really needs to be doing that and we should pass a law so they won't" and no one stood up against those laws. Once again, I personally would NOT go strolling through the mall with an AR nor boast about said activity on the internet, but I thought this topic was about more than just sheer silliness like that.

[texanjoker]

Another thought from a different perspective. Let's say the open carry agitators preferred interpretation is correct and what they are doing does not rise to the level of "calculated to alarm"?

What then is an LEO to do when the continue receiving MWAG 911 calls?

I realize the hardcore 2A civil libertarians will strongly disagree with this approach, but why not treat these calls like a trespassing call? Issue the open carrier an official "warning" that their actions ARE causing alarm and if they continue or repeat such actions knowing this information then the LEO will have no choice but to conclude that they are doing so in a "calculated" manner and arrest them for 42.01(a)(8).

They can give them a trespass warning for that business but a city-wide trespass warning seems like a Jim Crow relic. Honestly, a law enforcement agency that respects the constitution would treat a "man with a gun" call a lot like they treat a "man with a turban" call.

Gotta disagree on how they treat a man with a gun vs a man with a turban. Turbans don't kill, guns do. Having personally worked 2 two active shootings at schools, and countless drive byes, and other shootings, a man with a gun is serious. Obviously one has to evaluate when they arrive to determine what they have since we all know dispatch can get it wrong... The LEO must ALWAYS follow the constitution regardless if it's a open carry type walking around filming themselves or a parolee capping off rounds at a school bus full of kids. Both have the same rights afforded by our constitution.

[cb1000rider]

Gotta disagree on how they treat a man with a gun vs a man with a turban. Turbans don't kill, guns do. Having personally worked 2 two active shootings at schools, and countless drive byes, and other shootings, a man with a gun is serious. Obviously one has to evaluate when they arrive to determine what they have since we all know dispatch can get it wrong... The LEO must ALWAYS follow the constitution regardless if it's a open carry type walking around filming themselves or a parolee capping off rounds at a school bus full of kids. Both have the same rights afforded by our constitution.

A turban and a gun (long gun) are equally "legal" under the law in most public place circumstances. I'd certainly be more wary of the gun, but technically no one has a right to run either off unless the alarm is intentionally being caused. Put a guy with a turban on a commercial aircraft some people are automatically "alarmed", but law enforcement goes to great lengths to make darn sure before pulling an arrest on that issue, simply because of the legal culpability. Arresting a guy with a long gun out of the park carries a lot less risk, but really isn't any more legal - at least in my head..

Laws in other states sometimes include the idea that the mere presence of a firearm is not enough to trigger an arrest due to public alarm.

I understand the practical aspect of arresting the MWAG using a broadly interpreted tool, I simply don't agree with it. If we the people think that allowing ARs in public isn't something that we're comfortable with, we should change the law, not expect law enforcement to temporarily solve the problem using a tool that they have to bend. Literally, it's led to a point where I'm very uncomfortable relocating a long gun between vehicles in any sort of public space where someone might see me.

[03Lightningrocks]

But should I get arrested for carrying a Mosin Nagant (hard to find a case for such a long rifle) from my truck to my house if I have to park on the curb, and a neighbor is "alarmed" by the sight of the rifle? There has GOT to be more to "calculated to alarm" than just someone getting upset.

When my son was working security something along those lines happened to his boss. His boss was cleaning guns at his kitchen table, and some hysterical liberal who had immigrated from an anti-gun state called the police to report a man with a gun. While the only consequence was a visit by the police it's a indication of what anyone seen anywhere with a gun might face from such random hysteria.

The real reason this issue goes round and round is folks like to make arguments about situations that have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. These two post are a great example. I am going to assume I don't need to explain why.

No, please, explain. I gather that you absolutely cannot stand the "mall-ninjas" and the "open-carry at Starbucks" types, and I can understand why. However, the issue at hand is that the phrase "calculated to alarm" is open to interpretation, and it also seems that it can be driven by someone with a fear of firearms calling law enforcement because they have become "alarmed" even though nothing happened to them. California and other states didn't always have the draconian and over-the-top firearms laws as they do now; neither did those laws all get passed in one fell swoop. They came about bit-by-bit as some folks said things such as "no one really needs to be doing that and we should pass a law so they won't" and no one stood up against those laws. Once again, I personally would NOT go strolling through the mall with an AR nor boast about said activity on the internet, but I thought this topic was about more than just sheer silliness like that.

It is more of an issue I have with ignorance. I have always been a bit impatient with folks who show a complete lack of common sense. The mall ninjas are just one example of this.

Carrying a rifle from your car into your house, under the circumstances you sighted, has not in the past or ever will, equate to a nut carrying a rifle through the shopping mall. To think that anyone, including a cop, would ever site this as an example of "calculated to create alarm" is well... Laughable. Now change up the innocence of your example. Your ex wife is in the house you lived in at one time with the new man she left you for. You were not invited there and have no reason for popping in. It is known you have issues with this whole situation. Now it is pretty darned obvious you are either planning on shooting someone or at the least scaring them.

As for the second example, once again we are comparing a person cleaning a weapon in his house to a nut job carrying a rifle through a mall. No cop or any other person would accuse a guy cleaning his guns in his house, of intentionally creating alarm.

The issue is all about intentions. The folks open carrying their rifles are liars if they pretend they are not intentionally trying to get a rise or in other words, create alarm. Anyone who pretends they don't see this is a liar as well, unless they are gullible at the most extreme level.

Cops are not stupid and nobody has yet to be arrested that was not, in reality, trying to create alarm. So why do we keep having ridiculous examples as if we are all living in some alternate universe.