Man arrested for scaring people

Only in Illinois:

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: in that Shawn (SIC) Kranish knowingly did an act in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb Janna L. Shwaiko and provoke a breach of peace to wit Shawn (SIC) Kranish walked into the Presidents (SIC) office and requested from Shwaiko a meeting with the President. Kranish was wearing a blue jacket with the words “I Carry” on the front of the jacket and he was also wearing a black nylon pouch or handgun holster (Note: Can’t officer Crumb tell the difference?). Shwaiko believed Kranish to be carrying a gun and it alarmed her in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

7 Responses to “Man arrested for scaring people”

  1. I wouldn’t consider that an ‘only in Illinois’ thing. In PA if you’re carrying and you tell someone, ‘I have a gun’, that’s considered brandishing a weapon and can get you in a lot of trouble.

    And with good reason I think. Going out of your way to make sure a stranger (who’s not threatening you) knows you’re armed is a form of intimidation and shouldn’t be tolerated.

  2. Publicola says:

    SD,
    Sorry; that’s BS. If I’m having a conversation with someone & they say they cannot imagine knowing anyone who carries & I inform them that I carry that is not a good reason to have me arrested or even ticketed.

    & Pa is an open carry state isn’t it? So you’re saying it’s reasonable to charge someone with telling someone else they’re carrying even if said hogleg is visible on their hip?

    Nope; brandishing should be strictly limited to the purposeful display of a firearm with the desire to intimidate. Anything else opens the door to a host of bad situations for gun owners, not the least of which is gun owners being treated as a social caste lower than the GFW’s.

  3. >If Im having a conversation with someone & they say they cannot imagine knowing
    >anyone who carries & I inform them that I carry that is not a good reason to have me
    >arrested or even ticketed.

    Yes, but that’s because the context makes it unlikely to be interpretted as a threat. You didn’t just walk into a room and scream ‘HEY, I’VE GOT A GUN!’ for no reason, which is essentially what this guy is doing by emblazoning it across his jacket.

    And no, PA isn’t an open carry state.

  4. Publicola says:

    SD,
    Why would it be construed as a threat to say, in other than an obviously threatening context, that one carries? Saying that a shirt with “I Carry” on it is threatening is no different than saying that even casually admitting firearms possession in what to us would be a non-threatening context is a good reason for a brandishing charge.

    It’s like this: you or I would’t get really upset if someone said they were carrying as long as it wasn’t tied in with statements that we would construe an actual threat (or the strong implication of a threat). Some gun ignorant folks would assume any statement, even a general endorsement that everyone who can should carry, is a threat. Sticking up for a brandishing charge because of what was on the guy’s jacket is damn close to confirming the logic used by gun ignorant folks who want gun ownership & possession to be socially as well as legally unacceptable.

    & Pa isn’t an open carry state? The NRA-ILA page doesn’t point to anything (aside from laws that concern emergencies & Philly – although the language they use is a bit ambiguous) that would prevent open carry. Then again it doesn’t list open carry as an exception to needing a license. Shame, as the Pa. constitution is fairly clear. Do you know what law in Pa specifically prohibits open carry?

  5. PA Code Title 18 Para 6106 generally bans the carrying of loaded firearms in public without a license.
    PA Code Title 18 Para 6109 specifies that the license only permits the concealed carry of loaded firearms.

    As for the brandishing thing, even if we were to accept that the law SHOULD work how you describe, that not how it DOES work in PA. You can openly state that you have a permit to carry, but indicating that you ARE carrying is considered brandishing the weapon.

  6. The other problem is your suggestion for the law ads the very arbitrariness of enforcement you seem to be complaining of. It’s pretty clear there are cases where ‘I’m carrying a gun’ constitutes an illegal threat of force. So we have two choices: we can ban all such utterances, which creates an objective standard that all people with carry permits can follow: don’t draw attention to the fact you’re armed.

    Or, we can do what you suggest, which now means that the police and juries have to play referee over what you meant when you said it. Was it a threat or not?

    Personally, I’d rather not leave it up to a arbitary decision by a particular cop or juror who may or may not have a bias against gun owners.

  7. Publicola says:

    SD,
    You’re saying that we should ban all freedom of speech on a subject because that’s easier than sorting out what would be threatening speech.

    Look, I generally have issues with prior restraint when it comes to firearms laws. Actions that are threatening I can see some purpose in prohibiting through law. The potential for such actions however is something that the law should not touch on. But I doubt even the gun owners who think I go to far with respeect to what gun control isn’t acceptable would take serious issue with the idea of limiting free speech on a prior restraint basis.

    Really – that is the sort of logic used to justify prior restraint based gun control. “well since some folks rob banks with guns & we don’t want a cop or juror who may be biased against guns making the call then it’s preferable to just ban all carry within 1,000 feet of a bank. After all gun owners who weren’t going to rob the bank wouldn’t have a problem with it – & we could make it a part of the contract for them to have the privilige of carrying at alkl – that way when you find omeone with gun near a bank you know he was going to rob it”

    As for Pa.’s carry laws – SC is the same way. It still amazes me that states with a fairly straightforward RKBA provision in their constitution can limit openly carrying to one’s property. Correction – to one’s real estate, as PA bans carry in a car for defensive purposes (unless you’ve groveled for permission & paid a bribe for a CCW). Do you know of any court challenges to the prohibition on public carry that appealed to the PA constitution?