tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post851959354671507131..comments2024-03-27T08:40:31.785-06:00Comments on Clayton Cramer.: What Did Arkansas Pass?Clayton Cramerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-52749069509419914492013-07-11T20:52:32.469-06:002013-07-11T20:52:32.469-06:00Clayton, I've laid out how confusing the amend...Clayton, I've laid out how confusing the amended statute is <a href="http://wfgodbold.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/schrodingers-open-carry-in-arkansas/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />It's more complicated than I first thought; instead of the journey provision remaining a defense to carrying a weapon, it's now one of many enumerated permissible carry situations.<br /><br />The intent element added to the statute makes this seem more like a law to be used as an add-on offense rather than a stand-alone offense. I imagine it will take a test case to sort this out, and I'm not going to volunteer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-5616315997025942472013-07-11T14:31:41.095-06:002013-07-11T14:31:41.095-06:00I left this same comment over at SNBQ:
The AG opi...I left this same comment over at SNBQ:<br /><br />The <a href="http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2013-047.pdf" rel="nofollow">AG opinion on Act 746</a> is very narrow. The Act clarified some terminology, including the definition of “journey,” and the AG opinion only deals with that new definition and how that new definition does not allow open carry.<br /><br />The AG explicitly avoids the separate question of whether the change to the language defining the offense of carrying a weapon allows open carry (see footnote 7 in his opinion).<br /><br />The offense now has a mens rea element; the person charged must be possessing a weapon “with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ” it. The previous language criminalized possessing a weapon “with a purpose to employ” it.<br /><br />The state senator who asked for clarification of the law only asked about the journey provision, and so the AG didn’t give an opinion on the above changed language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com