The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - WCI v. Madison: was Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin

Al Norris · September 30, 2010, 01:42 PM

Disturbing the Peace or Breach of Peace (as it is called in common law) was an act or activity that was an offense to your liege.

There are three common law definitions. In the broadest terms, it is a crime and an indictable offense. In a more common sense, it is a minor crime that describes a disrupting effect upon the peace of the community. In it's most narrow sense, it is conduct that disturbs an individual.

It is this third meaning that has become controversial. Originally, such a disruption was not cause for arrest or other criminal sanctions. It was a petite civil offense by which the civil courts were the place for any remediation.

In early puritan America, breach of the peace was anything that was contrary to the public senses, which at that time were controlled by the majority religion. Right or wrong, that has never changed in the 13 colonies.

By the end of the 19th century, in most of the US, the various state and local governments crafted laws that made breach of the peace an infraction or misdemeanor against the public order. As a private affair, a police officer could not arrest anyone for breach of the peace unless the complainant signed a statement making a citizens arrest.

While most DP laws have remained as they were first crafted, the courts have given the offense new and broader definitions, such that they are now, as Trooper has remarked, "catch-all" laws (See General Article 134, UCMJ, for you military folks). No longer does a citizen have to sign a complaint. No longer does an police officer even have to have a viable complaint. Anything and everything can be a breach of the peace, and arrest is generally forthcoming. Let the Courts sort it out, is an applicable attitude.

There are still a few States that have statutes that the courts have not completely perverted. In CA, ID and WY, an individual must still sign a complaint (citizens arrest), else a police officer has no proper authority over the individual(s) creating the civil disturbance.

So what we can say is that originally, breach of peace laws were an offense to the Crown (or your local liege lord). Then they became an offense to the religious sensibilities of the colonists (Neither of which are applicable to Citizens of a Republic, I might add). Finally they have evolved into what they are today - When all else fails, charge them with DP.

In the instant case, we have an example of conflicting law. On the one hand, there is a lawful use of openly carrying a firearm (implicit), because concealed carry is a crime (explicit). And on the other hand is a disturbing the peace statute that allows for the persecution of an implicitly lawful act.

Trooper? In Connecticut, it is the same. Your statutes explicitly allows for open or concealed carry, via the carry permit. Yet your courts allow that statute to be voided by breach of peace law.

Seems to me that if an individual is offended, then that individual should seek redress via the civil courts. That is why they are there. Yet what we actually have are state actors who are offended that the plebes are armed and use the law to impose sanctions.

Expect that to all change in the near future.

September 30, 2010, 01:42 PM	#46
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Disturbing the Peace or Breach of Peace (as it is called in common law) was an act or activity that was an offense to your liege. There are three common law definitions. In the broadest terms, it is a crime and an indictable offense. In a more common sense, it is a minor crime that describes a disrupting effect upon the peace of the community. In it's most narrow sense, it is conduct that disturbs an individual. It is this third meaning that has become controversial. Originally, such a disruption was not cause for arrest or other criminal sanctions. It was a petite civil offense by which the civil courts were the place for any remediation. In early puritan America, breach of the peace was anything that was contrary to the public senses, which at that time were controlled by the majority religion. Right or wrong, that has never changed in the 13 colonies. By the end of the 19th century, in most of the US, the various state and local governments crafted laws that made breach of the peace an infraction or misdemeanor against the public order. As a private affair, a police officer could not arrest anyone for breach of the peace unless the complainant signed a statement making a citizens arrest. While most DP laws have remained as they were first crafted, the courts have given the offense new and broader definitions, such that they are now, as Trooper has remarked, "catch-all" laws (See General Article 134, UCMJ, for you military folks). No longer does a citizen have to sign a complaint. No longer does an police officer even have to have a viable complaint. Anything and everything can be a breach of the peace, and arrest is generally forthcoming. Let the Courts sort it out, is an applicable attitude. There are still a few States that have statutes that the courts have not completely perverted. In CA, ID and WY, an individual must still sign a complaint (citizens arrest), else a police officer has no proper authority over the individual(s) creating the civil disturbance. So what we can say is that originally, breach of peace laws were an offense to the Crown (or your local liege lord). Then they became an offense to the religious sensibilities of the colonists (Neither of which are applicable to Citizens of a Republic, I might add). Finally they have evolved into what they are today - When all else fails, charge them with DP. In the instant case, we have an example of conflicting law. On the one hand, there is a lawful use of openly carrying a firearm (implicit), because concealed carry is a crime (explicit). And on the other hand is a disturbing the peace statute that allows for the persecution of an implicitly lawful act. Trooper? In Connecticut, it is the same. Your statutes explicitly allows for open or concealed carry, via the carry permit. Yet your courts allow that statute to be voided by breach of peace law. Seems to me that if an individual is offended, then that individual should seek redress via the civil courts. That is why they are there. Yet what we actually have are state actors who are offended that the plebes are armed and use the law to impose sanctions. Expect that to all change in the near future.