Posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:59 AM PDT by StevenB
What on earth are you talking about, moron. They had valid Washington State CCWs which included a background check at every renewal.
The illegals, were of course, illegal.
Are you that ingnorant?
RCW 9.41.270,
"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm . . . in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
I figure the police simply wanted to give them a break and not charge them.
I'm certainly glad you had nothing to do with writing our Bill of Rights. You have no love for the constitution if your feeling about a Citizen's right to carry might interfere with an Illegal's NON right to march.
I would agree with you, had they been attending a neighborhood 4th Of July parade and had this not gone out just days before May 1.
http://www.rense.com/general70/arm.htm
..................The Director of Special Intelligence Services has reliable information that anti-Mexican forces in Aztlan and in certain other area of Anahuac, are preparing to utilize explosives and snipers to kill our people. We urge our community to arm themselves to protect our families.............................
.....................Our Prime Minister is instructing every able bodied male to arm himself to protect the women and children in his home. We can not depend on local White law enforcement authorities because in many cases they will join the criminal elements and participate in the slaughter of our people. Make sure you have weapons and plenty of ammunition in your homes at the ready...........................
That's fine & dandy, but any stats on how many don't get caught? I've heard that the Border Patrol catches 20% of those who attempt to cross the border.
Actually, BOTH citizens and illegal aliens have the exact same Constitutional right to free speech and to peaceably assemble. I see what you mean though about those who wrote the Bill of Rights denied those to slaves, for instance.
I don't have those stats. Assuming there are 20-30 million in the country, that would be where I would start with any estimate.
I think the stat. I heard yesterday was that 1 in 12 was a felon. That sounds like a good reason to pack.
RCW 9.41.270,
"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm . . . in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
It is extremely unlikely that these officers will face criminal charges. The police are generally immune from such prosecution unless it is obvious that they know they are violating someone's rights.
Very few people ever carry openly in urban areas in and it unfortunately does not surprise me that some if not many officers don't know that open carry is legal there.
It is definitely not fair that being unaware of the law is not an excuse for citizens, but is an accepted excuse to some extent for the police.
However, there really is no fair way to address this when the government has made the legal system so excessively complicated.
The people in charge of our police departments are politicians, and the training they receive is at times politically skewed.
The police has the task of enforcing the laws, however since the laws are at times excessively complex and even contradictory at times, it is likely that they will screw up sooner or later even if they are honorable people doing their best.
Therefore these people will have to seek justice in civil court this time. If these officers do this again, the excuse that they honestly didn't know isn't credible, and they might lose their immunity from prosecution if you can find a prosecutor who will actually charge them with a crime.
It appears your figure of 20 million illegals expelled by the government includes all voluntary departures.
I will always exercise my God-given and Constitutionally protected right to self defense. Better to be arrested than declared dead on the scene.
Besides, CCW is a civic duty.
ping
That's not the case - it includes voluntary AND the following forced removals:
1991 33,189
1992 43,671
1993 42,542
1994 45,674
1995 50,924
1996 69,680
1997 114,432
1998 173,146
1999 181,072
2000 186,222
2001 178,026
2002 150,542
2003 189,368
2004 202,842
Hold on there pardner, you're misreading me. I'm just saying the LEOs jump on law-abiding American Citizens' arses because THEY are afraid of the mixcans. Then I posted, in French, "France, we have become you."
I don't like it. Not one bit, no siree.
Or, rather "Formal removals" which includes deportations, exclusions, and forced removals.
The “permit-givers” generally don’t charge for what they consider to be brandishing, but they do yank permits. It is my experience that that’s enough to send a chill down any packer’s spine, so we usually take all precaution to avoid even any “printing”. I can understand the police action, given the intensity of the demonstration. We are not an “open carry society” yet, in spite of the many States which allow it. That will happen eventually at some point when CC expands enough and everyone can tell if someone’s carrying anyway, as long as the movement doesn’t fizzle in the meantime.
RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.
[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 426; 1969 c 8 § 1.]
I read this as to mean, if you are carrying in a community or location that it is not a surprise to see someone with a gun on their hip then you are fine. If you carry in an area that people don't normally see a person with a gun on their hip you are in deep doo doo.
Then there is the ever present area of debate that a prosecutor and a court of law get to chew on. Is carrying openly in park on Granite Falls, "a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other"????
The answer is "who knows?"
Now, if someone had a gun in their waistband and it becomes exposed, then the officers have a right to do an investigation. It's hard to argue that, considering the circumstances, that a counter protester who "exhibited" a firearm like this. Not on purpose, but in the totality of the circumstances, might end up in some disturbance and if he/she gets into it at a rally with thousands of persons walking the street, that they could end up using their firearm.
How reasonable would it look in the paper the next day when the headline was, "Police Detain and Release Gunman Minutes Before Shooting at Downtown Rally."
Were they illegally detained? The rub is, was the time it took to conduct the investigation "reasonable." I guess that's open to interpretation as well.
As usual it will be up to the lawyers to argue that point. But my guess is that if a payout is made it will be for less than if a shooting had taken place. What I can say with complete conviction, and absolute surety, is that open carry is legal unless it is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.