Open carry open defiance at Wyoming GOP Convention

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flechette

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
481
I was at the Wyoming GOP convention. It was fun.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regi...cle_d73bd8ef-fbb9-54da-a2ea-bacd7fef9eb7.html

At first the police wanted to arrest everyone carrying, but when they got there there was too many people carrying. They decided to issue only one guy with a citation.

Everyone was calm and professional. The open carriers came back the second day carrying again. Nothing was done.

The GOP also changed their platform to disallow any future GOP events from happening in gun-free zones.
 
Kudos to those open carrying. While I’m not a fan of open carry, I appreciate all who do.

So respectfully standing up to those trying to deny us our rights by exercising ours is what I’ve been saying for a long time. Some may not like it, in fact many may not like it, but our country has checks and balances that ensures that we don’t have mob rule. We need to show that doing things like this isn’t breaking the law, isn’t threatening anyone, it’s ensuring that we don’t have our rights taken away. And it shows that people can disagree and still behave like adults.

And boo hiss to the one arrested. I hope whatever laws they broke that they’re charged to the fullest extent of the law if they broke any laws, and that they’re acquitted if they didn’t break any.
 
Actually, arresting only one person will come back to bite the university.

It is unconstitutional to charge some people but not others for the same offense (equal application of the law).

So the gunnies have several very good arguments in court.
 
Actually, arresting only one person will come back to bite the university.

It is unconstitutional to charge some people but not others for the same offense (equal application of the law).

So the gunnies have several very good arguments in court.

Do we know all the facts?
Did that person break a law. If so they should be arrested. If not they shouldn’t.
And yes I agree selective enforcement is wrong
 
Do we know all the facts?
Did that person break a law. If so they should be arrested. If not they shouldn’t.
And yes I agree selective enforcement is wrong

The State Constitution recognizes open carrying on all state property, including government buildings (except in courts of trial where the bailiff assumes the responsibility to protect everyone). It also says that no permit is required to carry concealed. The University of Wyoming is on state land. The university believes that it is essentially a sovereign nation, and can pass their own laws and can ignore the State Constitution.

It was the plan for the gunnies to get arrested. They want to push this issue in court. Basically a Rosa Parks manuver.
 
As of 1999 there was a range on their property. I know I was signed for it and the 16 Ruger .22 pistols that were in the arms room. There was also a youth shooting club that used it a few times a week and transported its .22 rifles there every time. Too cold, too much snow and got dark too early to use the towns outdoor range in the winter.
 
....It is unconstitutional to charge some people but not others for the same offense (equal application of the law).....

And you have some legal authority to back up that conjecture?

Yes, I'm aware that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a State may not:
...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But "equal protection" is not the same as "equal application."

So let's see some citations to federal court decisions supporting your claim. Or are you just making stuff up?
 
Officer discretion.

Something tells me that if two people committed a crime, and only one was arrested....and that they were of different races...then there would be all sorts of lawyers saying that the officers do not have discretion.

(I don't want to get on a tangent, but I think everyone would agree that racism had a lot to do with the 14th Amendment being passed so I think that it can be mentioned here as an example)

The police...law enforcement officers are supposed to enforce the law. Not just for some people and not others.
 
And you have some legal authority to back up that conjecture?

Yes, I'm aware that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a State may not:
But "equal protection" is not the same as "equal application."

So let's see some citations to federal court decisions supporting your claim. Or are you just making stuff up?

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but what do you think the difference is? Reading many legal sites the two terms appear virtually interchangeable.

I witnessed the so-called "crime"; about a dozen people were openly carrying pistols. Despite many of them being plainly in view, standing right next to the guy cited and talking with the officers, only one person was cited.

That means that the officers somehow picked him to be cited and not the others. That decision had to be made on some basis, which is the dictionary definition of "discrimination".
 
Something tells me that if two people committed a crime, and only one was arrested....and that they were of different races...then there would be all sorts of lawyers saying that the officers do not have discretion.

(I don't want to get on a tangent, but I think everyone would agree that racism had a lot to do with the 14th Amendment being passed so I think that it can be mentioned here as an example)

The police...law enforcement officers are supposed to enforce the law. Not just for some people and not others.

Thank you for confirming that you don't know what you are talking about and that you are not basing your claim on actual legal authority. In other words, you're just making stuff up.

And since you're demonstrably ignorant about the law you clearly have never heard of the well established doctrine of prosecutorial discretion:
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation.....
 
you clearly have never heard of the well established doctrine of prosecutorial discretion

Edit: Here is a link to the Police Chiefs discussion of how the situation was handled:

http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a9614f4c-f936-5cc0-80cf-d771a957a7f3.html

Full disclosure: I'm am not an attorney.


Frank, would this be an issue of selective enforcement, rather then prosecutorial discretion since only one individual of the group of alleged violators was cited ?

Is the Police Chiefs rationale valid?
 
Last edited:
Can you tell me why?

You wrote in post 3:
....It is unconstitutional to charge some people but not others for the same offense (equal application of the law)....
When asked for legal authority supporting your claim of unconstitutionality, you failed to do so, and instead responded with a load of gibberish. It's your claim so it's your burden to prove it.

The reality is that it's not necessarily unconstitutional to charge some people for a crime and not others for the same offense. It indeed is done all the time. And while doing so might be discriminatory, not all discrimination is unlawful or unconstitutional.

And there is very little limitation on prosecutorial discretion. Another lawyer I know explained it very well on another board here, so let's see what he had to say:
KyJim said:
...A claim of selective prosecution is rooted in the Fifth Amendment right of equal protection made applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 (1962); 21A Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 983 (1998). The prosecutor has broad discretion in deciding whom to prosecute. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985); United States v. White, 972 F.2d 16, 18 (2nd Cir.1992). This discretion is subject to constitutional restrictions on prosecutions on the basis of race, religion, or some other arbitrary classification based on the exercise of protected rights. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 608; Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978); see also 21A Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 983 (1998).

A person claiming selective prosecution must show both that the prosecutor had a discriminatory purpose and the prosecution had a discriminatory effect. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996). There is a presumption of regularity given prosecutorial decisions which must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465.

In order to show discriminatory effect, a defendant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different classification were not prosecuted. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465; United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 977 (6th Cir.1998). In proving discriminatory purpose, it is not enough to show a prosecutor was aware of the consequences. One must prove the decision to prosecute was made “because of,” and not just “in spite of,” adverse consequences on an identifiable group. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 610.

....would this initially be an issue of selective enforcement, rather then prosecutorial discretion since only one individual of the group of alleged violators was cited ? Or are the two synonymous under current established doctrine?

The two would be subject to essentially the same sort of standard. In other words it would be extremely difficult to challenge an exercise of discretion.
 
According to the link from Mr. Ettin, I'm failing to see what Prosecutorial Discretion has to do with anything here. The issue is not that the Prosecuting attorney is going after one but not all. The issue is that the Chief of Police has issued one person as citation for Trespassing, but not all of the others who were doing the same. Nothing was mentioned at all about Attorneys, prosecuting or otherwise.
 
According to the link from Mr. Ettin, I'm failing to see what Prosecutorial Discretion has to do with anything here. The issue is not that the Prosecuting attorney is going after one but not all. The issue is that the Chief of Police has issued one person as citation for Trespassing, but not all of the others who were doing the same. Nothing was mentioned at all about Attorneys, prosecuting or otherwise.

Prosecutorial discretion doesn't just encompass the prosecutor's office. It extends to actions at the law enforcement level. Police have broad discretion as well. If you doubt that I suggest trying to argue to the judge that you should not have to pay a speeding ticket because police sometimes let folks doing the same thing off with a warning or because police don't chase down every speeder they might see.

And if you have some actual, contrary legal authority we'd love to see it.
 
I was only pointing out that the legal authority that you pointed out didn't say what you implied it said.

If you had actually bothered to pay attention, I addressed the issue in post 16. And just to help clarify matters:
...Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency or officer to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue each case. A law-enforcement officer who declines to pursue a case against a person has favorably exercised prosecutorial discretion. In the criminal system, for example, police officers frequently decline to arrest people for minor infractions (e.g. jaywalking) and prosecutors often bring lesser charges against defendants to facilitate plea bargaining....
 
We could avoid most of these problems if people would only practice good citizenship and have their lawyers spayed or neutered.

Vern, the following is said with total respect for you, your rank, and life accomplishments. I'm your age and have had similar experiences.
But
Your answer is too simplistic and frankly insultingly sarcastic.
Yes good citizenship is in short supply and good decision making is in even shorter supply but taking cheap shots at lawyers, just diminishes your status and makes all of us look foolish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vern, the following is said with total respect for you, your rank, and life accomplishments. I'm your age and have had similar experiences.
But
Your answer is too simplistic and frankly insultingly sarcastic.
Yes good citizenship is in short supply and good decision making is in even shorter supply but taking cheap shots at lawyers, just diminishes your status and makes all of us look foolish.
When you can't tell lawyer jokes, Political Correctness has run amok!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top