Replies

Here we go again.

I'm not a lawyer, I am not qualified to give legal advice. To get legal advice, consult a lawyer.

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.

Your argument is similar to the argument that people could be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace for carrying openly if it scares someone else. If I remember correctly there were a couple cases where people were detained here in Ohio after our Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting open carry (with some exceptions) was unconstitutional.

However, I don't believe anyone was ever even charged with disturbing the peace for doing so. A legal and constitutionally protected act in itself cannot be construed as a cause for alarm. They would have to do something that could be reasonably construe as threatening others, or doing something that negligently placed others at risk.

Washington State Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Saying that merely possessing firearms for self defense while performing other legal and constitutionally protected acts is illegal would be blatantly unconstitutional based on their State constitution.

Legal possession of a firearm in a legal manner does not legally "warrant alarm".

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.

Simple fear and misunderstanding of otherwise legal acts is not warranted or justified alarm.

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.

Someone reported that one of these people had a firearm. I agree that it was reasonable for the Police to investigate the situation. However, since there appears to have been no evidence that the weapons were brandished or that any threats were made, the police had no authority to detain them.

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.

So you're saying that though their legal actions they might find themselves in a situation where they might need to defend themselves? Remember the beginning of Article 1 section 24, The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.

Were they illegally detained? The rub is, was the time it took to conduct the investigation "reasonable."

There doesn't appear to have been any evidence that they had done anything illegal. It was reasonable to question them, but there was no legal justification for detaining them. The police removed them and prevented them from exercising their first amendment rights without evidence of breaking any laws. Their only justification for doing so was directly in conflict with their state constitution.

This situation isn't ambiguous.

To me, my Rights are not to be circumscribed by someone elses "feelings". To the best of my knowledge, there is no "Right to not be alarmed".

If someone feels "frightened" by the thought of a fellow citizen exercizing a Right? Maybe you are in the wrong damn country.

Someone reported that one of these people had a firearm. I agree that it was reasonable for the Police to investigate the situation. However, since there appears to have been no evidence that the weapons were brandished or that any threats were made, the police had no authority to detain them.

I beg to differ. The legal authority for a detention is Terry v Ohio and states that an officer only have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed.

That threshold is easily met.

My pointing out the law was so people would realize the vagueness of this law. It also leaves wiggle room for an officer to do an investigation.

Most importantly, outside of this case, is that an overzealous prosecutor, with a political or ideological motive, could use this vagueness in the law to prosecute someone for headlines.