examiner.com - Arkansas to become the nation’s 45th open carry state on August 15th

[Mike]

http://www.examiner.com/article/arkansas-to-become-the-nation-s-45th-open-carry-state-on-august-15th

SNIP

Arkansas will become the nation’s 45th open carry state on August 15th of this year. This result arises from the Arkansas legislature’s enactment of HB 1700, a bill sponsored by Representative Denny Altes (R – Fort Smith) which amended Arkansas Code § 5-73-120 (Carrying a weapon).

The change to § 5-73-120 is straightforward.

. . .

 

[Packer fan]

http://www.examiner.com/article/arkansas-to-become-the-nation-s-45th-open-carry-state-on-august-15th

SNIP

Arkansas will become the nation’s 45th open carry state on August 15th of this year. This result arises from the Arkansas legislature’s enactment of HB 1700, a bill sponsored by Representative Denny Altes (R – Fort Smith) which amended Arkansas Code § 5-73-120 (Carrying a weapon).

The change to § 5-73-120 is straightforward.

. . .

Thank you for the update.

 

[sopranos27]

http://www.examiner.com/article/arkansas-to-become-the-nation-s-45th-open-carry-state-on-august-15th

SNIP

Arkansas will become the nation’s 45th open carry state on August 15th of this year. This result arises from the Arkansas legislature’s enactment of HB 1700, a bill sponsored by Representative Denny Altes (R – Fort Smith) which amended Arkansas Code § 5-73-120 (Carrying a weapon).

The change to § 5-73-120 is straightforward.

. . .

Where did August 15th come from? Thought it went into effect July 1st...

 

[Grapeshot]

As I see and interpert this straight forward language, it can be summed up in just 2 words:

Constitutional Carry

 

[tattedupboy]

Way to go, Arkansas! I'm wondering though, does this apply to nonresidents as well?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grapeshot]

Way to go, Arkansas! I'm wondering though, does this apply to nonresidents as well?

It would appear so.

Effective August 15, 2013, when HB 1700 takes effect, any arrest, charge, or conviction for violating § 5-73-120 can only lawfully arise if two elements of the offense are present. First, that a person was carrying one of the specified weapons. And second, that she was doing so “with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.” [emphasis added].

 

[77zach]

This law reads kind of like the law in Vermont. Their law took its present form about a century ago when their supreme court interpreted the law like we're reading it on this board.

This is 2013 and the police and courts are much more anti gun than they were in vermont in 1900. I'm guessing there will have to be a test case AND a state supreme court decision interpreting it favorably. Or maybe an attorney general opinion??

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Don't do the victory dance yet, the Governor says this doesn't allow OC, the Chief of the State Police says this doesn't allow OC. No court CAN rule on it, and the AG has opted not to review it yet.

For anyone in AR, you can fully expect to be arrested or cited.... While the law seemingly allows, I would hate to see an unwilling test case take to the streets without knowing that

 

[KBCraig]

Don't do the victory dance yet, the Governor says this doesn't allow OC, the Chief of the State Police says this doesn't allow OC.

Fortunately, their opinions carry zero legal weight, especially since they are in complete contradiction to the law as passed. The sponsor, Rep. Denny Altes, has made it clear that his legislative intent was exactly this: constitutional carry. Since the bill passed both houses with only a single "nay" vote and no objection from the ASP or Arkansas Sheriff's Association, then was signed into law by the governor, I'd say the momentum is on his side.

"But... we didn't know it meant that when we supported it and passed it" carries no legal weight.

 

[sopranos27]

Fortunately, their opinions carry zero legal weight, especially since they are in complete contradiction to the law as passed. The sponsor, Rep. Denny Altes, has made it clear that his legislative intent was exactly this: constitutional carry. Since the bill passed both houses with only a single "nay" vote and no objection from the ASP or Arkansas Sheriff's Association, then was signed into law by the governor, I'd say the momentum is on his side.

"But... we didn't know it meant that when we supported it and passed it" carries no legal weight.

Exactly! I think whoever "tests" the new law will see a hefty payout from the civil suit they will win against whichever PD arrests them...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Fortunately, their opinions carry zero legal weight, especially since they are in complete contradiction to the law as passed. The sponsor, Rep. Denny Altes, has made it clear that his legislative intent was exactly this: constitutional carry. Since the bill passed both houses with only a single "nay" vote and no objection from the ASP or Arkansas Sheriff's Association, then was signed into law by the governor, I'd say the momentum is on his side.

"But... we didn't know it meant that when we supported it and passed it" carries no legal weight.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying if the LE and executive power structure doesn't think it means that, just be aware they will operate under that assumption until a court smacks them down, and even then they may still try under a different legal theory.

also keep in mind, if the majority of the legislature would not have supported this law had they not been hoodwinked, they can change it back at will. so try not to get too provactive over there until it's clear they won't just change it back.

good luck and enjoy your Constitutional Carry.

 

[Nascar24Glock]

As I see and interpert this straight forward language, it can be summed up in just 2 words:

Constitutional Carry

I think there's two ways to interpret this new law. The law now says: "A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person." (operative words underlined). One way to interpret this new law is that the offense of carrying a weapon is not triggered unless the person possesses the weapon with the intent to "unlawfully employ" it. However, it will probably be interpreted a different way. Specifically, the government will probably infer intent to "unlawfully employ" the weapon based solely on possession of the weapon. This interpretation seems to be implied from the other words in the statute. In particular, the law spells out several conditions under which carrying a gun is permissible (such as having a handgun permit or "being on a journey," defined as traveling outside one's home county). To me, these exceptions are redundant if Constitutional Carry was really the goal of the legislature.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, just like Illinois if they do not pass some form of carrying legislation by June 9th.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think there's two ways to interpret this new law. The law now says: "A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person." (operative words underlined). One way to interpret this new law is that the offense of carrying a weapon is not triggered unless the person possesses the weapon with the intent to "unlawfully employ" it. However, it will probably be interpreted a different way. Specifically, the government will probably infer intent to "unlawfully employ" the weapon based solely on possession of the weapon. This interpretation seems to be implied from the other words in the statute. In particular, the law spells out several conditions under which carrying a gun is permissible (such as having a handgun permit or "being on a journey," defined as traveling outside one's home county). To me, these exceptions are redundant if Constitutional Carry was really the goal of the legislature.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, just like Illinois if they do not pass some form of carrying legislation by June 9th.

Well I infer the intent of the legislature as allowing me to carry a firearm with the intent to unlawfully employ it while on a journey. For instance, if my turn lights stop working I can use my gun to signal turns by clenching it in my Hand while doing hand signals, which if you think about it makes sense because if on a road trip people may not pay enough attention to hand signals otherwise

On a more serious note, if the government prevails at court and you get convicted for open carry, you can have a maximum of 364 days in jail, a 5000 dollar fine, or both AND the state police may deny you a CCW license for up to 5 years after conviction. Keep that in mind everyone

 

[Mike]

Elements of the offense; rule of lenity

Specifically, the government will probably infer intent to "unlawfully employ" the weapon based solely on possession of the weapon. This interpretation seems to be implied from the other words in the statute. In particular, the law spells out several conditions under which carrying a gun is permissible (such as having a handgun permit or "being on a journey," defined as traveling outside one's home county). To me, these exceptions are redundant if Constitutional Carry was really the goal of the legislature.

**There are no "exceptions" in the new statutes** - all the old defenses (perhaps what you call were repealed, and the enumeration of examples where carry is permitted in the statutes are exactly that - just examples.

The elements of the offense have been changed - that is what counts.

And courts construe criminal statutes under the rule of lenity:

Rule of Lenity: In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); the traditional rule for construing criminal statutes is the rule of lenity, a name given to a common law principle that "penal statutes should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the persons on whom penalties are sought to be imposed." NORMAN J. SINGER, STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 59.03 (5th ed. 1992).

 

[websterz]

:banana::monkey Congrats Arkies!! Welcome to the club! :monkey:banana: