Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1493536" data-attributes="member: 5151">Ask them to back up such a statement with their name attached to it. I would say &quot;good luck&quot; considering that such wording would be subject to the legal fiction of the reasonable man. A defense attorney would have to articulate why the defendant had a reasonable fear of bodily harm. This involves identifying the specific threat that existed as statistical vagaries such as an increasing crime are not necessarily enough for a reasonable man to become fearful.A person carrying openly could still be arrested for unlawful carry with the original wording in HB1647. Does OK2A therefore, in supporting the original language of the bill, support the legal harassment of citizens who reasonably believe that they are following the law when they carry openly? The defendant would then need to show why he had a &quot;reasonable fear of bodily harm&quot;. The State&#039;s job then is to show why that &quot;fear&quot; is not &quot;reasonable&quot;. Unless specifics are given that could not reasonably be addressed another way, that should be an easy slam dunk for the State.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1493536, member: 5151"] Ask them to back up such a statement with their name attached to it. I would say "good luck" considering that such wording would be subject to the legal fiction of the reasonable man. A defense attorney would have to articulate why the defendant had a reasonable fear of bodily harm. This involves identifying the specific threat that existed as statistical vagaries such as an increasing crime are not necessarily enough for a reasonable man to become fearful. A person carrying openly could still be arrested for unlawful carry with the original wording in HB1647. [b]Does OK2A therefore, in supporting the original language of the bill, support the legal harassment of citizens who reasonably believe that they are following the law when they carry openly?[/b] The defendant would then need to show why he had a "reasonable fear of bodily harm". The State's job then is to show why that "fear" is not "reasonable". Unless specifics are given that could not reasonably be addressed another way, that should be an easy slam dunk for the State. [/QUOTE]

Verification