Replies

Hey y'all, check out this little story. Can any of you add detail? ;o)

This is the first I heard about it. I'll defitnitely be listing to Suits today. My first thought was this was one of those deals where when you write the report you want your supervisors name in there as much as possible explaining why you detained a law abiding citizen so your not swinging alone during the lawsuit...just going off of the details provided of course.

In my little neck of the woods, the cops outnumbered the protestors. So I was told

I didn't hear this part of Bryan's show last night. This reminds me of a similar incident that happened at the anti-hilarycare rally at Pike Place Market a decade ago and was mentioned in Hitlery's book about the VRWC.

Some schmuck was walking by and for some reason the Secret Service stopped him and searched the guy's backpack and found a pistol. The guy had a permit, also.

I believe he was detained just like this guy, too.

Here is a little problem I have with this article. Not really a problem with the article, but with some information that is given out in it, that is not exactly correct. Below is the actual RCW covering open carry. I have bolded, and increased the font size, of the portion that leaves an open carry individual hanging in the breeze legally; so to speak.

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.

This is the first time I've heard of this nonsense... I'd be hiring me some top shelf lawyers if this had happenned to me...