Ellensburg, WA Open Carry Letter to Editor

Letter to editor
It has now been 2 months since Ellensburg Police responded with over 4 officers to Fred Meyers while I was shopping with my wife, legally carrying my unconcealed weapon, (Colt 1911). They detained me, took my handgun, grilled my wife and myself with questions, and attempted to get me removed from the business through store managers. I filed a complaint against Ellensburg Police shortly after the incident. Their only response to date has been the denial of my Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of the 911-call that had started the situation. I was actually at the dispatch center and had already listened to the 911-call when it was abruptly taken out of public record by Ellensburg Police Department. What I heard in the call was an Ellensburg businessman calling to ask about the law in regard to carrying a handgun. After being directed to call another agency, the businessman told of seeing a customer with a gun and wanted to know if it was legal, stating clearly that he was not threatened or intimated by me. Ellensburg Police unlawfully turned this call into their reasonable suspicion of a crime to stop and question me. Without reasonable suspicion of a crime, the Terry stop, (the ID check), was done without legal authority. After the ID check, the continued harassment and attempt to have me removed from the store was just plain wrong. It is called the 2nd Amendment and open carrying is one of the few abilities Washington citizens have left to express this right without impairment, (apparently Ellensburg Police believe intimidation with police presence isn’t an impairment.) Moreover, with terrorism on the rise, a citizen equipped with the unique item that can adequately defend against terror should be commended.
Jason

Just as in the case currently being discussed by media here in Virginia, you'd better be prepared for the hassle if you exercise your right to open carry in "questionable" areas. i.e., areas likely to be populated with people who are unfamiliar with guns or gun laws. Just a fact of life.

It remains to be seen whether this will actually generate support for open carry among the populace, or result in a backlash attempt to outlaw it in law. I'm not predicting or flaming you; just observing the facts.

Note: I do believe the Ellensberg cops over-reacted and were ignorant of the law; for that, they should be counselled/corrected. It's your call whether to pursue legal action or not.

TC
TFL Survivor

IIRC, this guy admitted before that he was carrying "Mexican style" and was not exactly "dressed for success." That doesn't make what he did illegal, but maybe inadvisable and legitimize some level of concern by others.

like I said last time, the Ellensburg PD are not exactly the most open minded individuals and it would be a good idea to pick and choose your battles with them.

dunno if it was a great idea to call them out in the paper, they like to "knock and talk."

It's law suit time.

If it's not illegal, the cops have no business hassling citizens—period.

Can anyone in WA or anyone familiar with WA statutes cite the specific RCW that allows open carry?? Or prohibits it?? I've always thought that open carry is sort of a gray area even though there may be no law that specifically allows it or prohibits it.

Most LEO's around here will respond to a "man with a gun" call as though it is an offense being committed. They do not necessairly know the specific details of what is going on at the time a call comes in. If you listen to police radio on a scanner, you'll find that the LEO gets his information 3rd hand. A complainant calls 911 who describes what he sees. The 911 dispatcher will then notify a partol officer over the radio and send them to the scene giving them the information in a condensed form. In some cases the city or county may have online capability with a computer terminal in the car for the LEO to read in some detail.

I wouldn't be suprised that LEO's in a given city may be told what to do by a Chief of Police or Sheriff when it comes to dealing with citizens who openly carry a firearm. In effect, they may not necessiarily have any leeway in dealing with the situation. If a Chief says that nobody in his town can carry openly, the cop on the street may have to follow that polcy regardless of his personal feelings or how the situation plays out.

Because WA is a "shall issue" state when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon, I personally would not consider carrying openly simply because of the potential hassle it could bring. I have no problem in dealing with LEO's if they are aware of the specific laws that apply to a situation. Those that use intimidation without regard to the law need to be educated in the law. I would even cooperate fully with a LEO if he asked me for ID or even a CCW permit. I have nothing to hide from them and I see no reason to risk a confrontation. I would much rather be "on their side" as opposed to being someone who they would view with suspicion if I refuse any request for simple information from them. Knowing a few police officers and deputies, I have come to understand that it is much better to be friends than to be an antagonist.

As far as FishOrMan being asked to leave a private business while he was carrying a weapon, that would be completely up to the store owner or manager. Fred Meyer may not necessarily have a specific policy about carrying a weapon in any of their stores but the manager probably felt he had a right to ask him to leave the property if he ws causing a scene in the store. The fight at that point should have been with Fred Meyer and not the police officers.

This is a response I got from Dave Workman who published the book Washington Gun owners rights and responsibilities, about open carry in Central Washington, If you live in Washington State this is a VERY good book to have. If you need more information on how to get it here, let me know, but check your local gun stores first.

Open carry is "essentially" legal in Washington, because the firearms statutes basically deal with concealed carry, and we do have the constitutionla right under the state constitution.... but there are several HOWEVERs in there that rational citizens ought to pay close attention to.

Open carry is pushing an envelope and so far, in my experienced opinion, so far people have been lucky. In RCW 9.41.270 there is a huge "loophole" that would allow a person who carries openly to be arrested and prosecuted, and he would probably lose.

That's Section 1 (see below) in which a person can be arrested for exhibiting, displaying, carrying or drawing any firearm, dagger sword etc... 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 the perception of the observer that counts here. If Mrs. Jones is in a bank, grocery store, or on the street with her two kids and gets alarmed, frightened or intimidated, the person with the pistol is going to find himself/herself in pretty deep legal yogurt. That this hasn't happened so far speaks well for the good pro-gun citizens of Ellensburg, and their common sense in the matter. If he tries the same thing in Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett or one of the other big urban centers, he may spend a lot of time in police stations, and may even participate in the jail food taste test.

In my book, I mention open carry in the context of a discussion about the repeal of a section of the juvenile crime law a few years ago that related to carrying rifles and shotguns in truck racks. I noted that the repeal of this statute did not make it legal to walk down the street with a loaded gun on your hip, and that's absolutely accurate. A lot of people misunderstood what repeal of the "open carry" prohibition was all about, and it had nothing to do with handguns.

I also advise people against walking around with a gun on their hip because you can get arrested for various offenses including Brandishing, Creating a Public Disturbance, Disturbing the Peace...even assault if a prosecutor wants to push the envelope a bit himself. The "warning sign" to this potential is right there in 9.41.270.

I am always wary of people who go out of their way to "get in the faces" of others. If this guy wants to carry a firearm, good for him. The element of surprise is always on the side of the guy who carries concealed. If he doesn't have a concealed pistol license and doesn't want to apply for one... why not? It's good to have for purchasing firearms, for carry in other states, and for demonstrating to some small degree to the police officers you will be regularly talking to that your background has been checked and it's clean and your CPL says so.

If one keeps packing openly, and one evening he's in a Stop and Rob over along I-90 in E-Burg when two illegals from Yakima come in to rob the place and they plan to do it violently. Guess who stands the highest probability of being shot first? Maybe even with his own gun. Most certainly if he does the really stupid thing: trying to draw on a guy who is holding a gun on him. Nobody's that fast, not even me.




Thanks for writing
Dave Workman


note some information has been deleted.

If he doesn't have a concealed pistol license and doesn't want to apply for one... why not?

I guess I am just a nut case.

Because, I do not believe asking permission of the state to carry is RIGHT. A requirement to pay money is included in getting a CPL. This cost will only continue to go up. (Maybe just enough to keep guns out of the hands of the poor, that can't be such a bad thing, can it???)

The process in order to receive a CPL falls far short of what our rights actually are. This "settle for" game is not one that I believe should be played. When enough of us are willing to play the game, it will cost us with the continually eroding of our rights, (but government will have our "permission" every step of the way, because enough of us settled for it).

I do enjoy being able to defend my wife's life when taking a walk. And I would much rather be defending her legally, then take the walk on the criminal side and simply conceal the gun. But, be it known, this is the direction I will take long before I start playing the "settle for" game with something as important as the 2nd Amendment.

I am always wary of people who go out of their way to "get in the faces" of others. If this guy wants to carry a firearm, good for him. The element of surprise is always on the side of the guy who carries concealed.

Let it be clear. We are not in a war against the "element of surprise." We are not in a war against the criminal, or how fast the criminal can draw his weapon. The war gun owners fight, as history has proved time and time again, is an overzealous government.

Luckily, our government is controlled by the voting citizens, (sort of). Sadily, the citizens are currently controlled by the media and government programs that have been telling them for decades that guns are "evil." We have conditioned ourselves into never showing the "good" guns and so the masses, living in fear of all guns, have voted accordingly.

In our country, the mindset of the masses is where our battle begins and ends. Sadly, this battle was started decades ago and we have yet to step foot on the battlefield. Playing the "settle for" game while on the battlefield will only be cause for a sour victory.

Here's the full text of the WA RCW 2.41.270 regarding carrying a weapon other than concealed: http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.41.270&fuseaction=section Section 1 can certainly be interpreted a number of ways, but Section 2 is much clearer on the penalties that can be placed on someone who is found to be in violation of Section 1.

Mr. Workman has some good suggestions and advice on the subject. CCW in WA is relatively easy to get if one passes the required checks. The potential for losing your CCW permit is too great a risk for carrying openly. The political views on this issue may be very different depending on which side of the Cascades you are on, but the state law does not (and can't)take that into consideration. In order for laws to be effective, they have to be applied equally.

What I heard in the call was an Ellensburg businessman calling to ask about the law in regard to carrying a handgun. After being directed to call another agency, the businessman told of seeing a customer with a gun and wanted to know if it was legal, stating clearly that he was not threatened or intimated by me.

You said it yourself there, and the law say it all...
That's Section 1 (see below) in which a person can be arrested for exhibiting, displaying, carrying or drawing any firearm, dagger sword etc... 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.

Obviously if you heard the 911 tape the person was calling to inquire as to the legality of open carry, he probably did this because he saw you carrying and became alarmed. He called to check it.
It is the perception of the observer that counts here. If Mrs. Jones is in a bank, grocery store, or on the street with her two kids and gets alarmed, frightened or intimidated, the person with the pistol is going to find himself/herself in pretty deep legal yogurt.

If you don't want to spend the money and get the background check done so be it thats your perogative, but why then are you complaining about getting checked out? I mean I wasn't there so I can't say what happened was right or wrong, I am sure if one where to contact the Ellensburg Police dept, we would get a different story. Me personaly I have my CPL, and if open carry where easier to do without the hassle I might consider it, but for now I will just carry concealed, not be the test case for the State of Washington.
This is from the courts, The State V. Tully has been case law since it was heard, and until it changes it's going to stay the same. So apearently if I am reading this right, the state can limit the scope of the second amendment.
[3] Second. This court, in State v. Tully, 198 Wash. 605, 89 P. (2d) 517 , held that the uniform short firearms act (Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), §§ 2516-1 to 2516-20, incl.) does not violate Art. I, § 24, of the state constitution, which guarantees to the people the right to keep and bear arms. It has long been recognized that this constitutional guarantee is subject to reasonable regulation by.the state under its police power. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816; English v. The State, 35 Tex. 473, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Pierce v. State, 42 Okla. Crim. 272, 275 Pac. 393; People v. Persce, 204 N. Y. 397, 97 N. E. 877; Hill v. Georgia, 53 Ga. 472; Page v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 198.

Don't let them get you down.

2a isn't that hard to understand. Even for educated people.

but......

Please don't do drugs.
Please don't speed.
Please don't drive an unsafe veekle
Please make sure your tags are up to date.
Please renew your drivers license on time.
Please pay your taxes.
Please don't cheat on your taxes.
Please don't beat your wife.
Please don't yell at the neighbors.
Please don't go to the wrong church.
Please use your turnsignal.
Please don't spit on the sidewalk.
Please don't spit.
Please don't go to dirty movies.
Please don't rent dirty movies.
Please don't drink and drive.
Please don't drink.
Please don't drive.
Please don't spank your children.,
Please don't cuss.
Please don't build anything without a permit.
Please don't repair your plumbing by yourself.
Please don't write your politicians.
Please don't write your newspapers.
Please don't make yourself an inconvenience to your govt.
Please don't do anything for which they can claim you are a bad guy.

Otherwise, yer good to go.

You screw up once and that will prove that they were right and you should not have been allowed to have the right to protect yourself. It's an awesome responsibility.

:D

FishOrMan - I am a former WA resident and still hold a WA non-res CHL. I support your right to open carry and your choice to do so. However, no matter how you dress, shave or cut your hair, please carry in a holster . It would give me serious pause to see one walking around openly carrying "Mexican style" (tucked into belt, waistband, or pocket w/o holster) not because I would questionyour intentions, but because I would question your judgment and ability to safely carry and handle a handgun.

The manner in which I carry is as close to concealed as possible. Up front and center, black gun on dark shirt. If you even noticed the gun I would be surprised. Most folks I don't stand directly in front of and chat with never notice the gun. I walked directly past a "trained to be observant" Ellensburg officer, who failed to notice.

I don't carry to have the gun stand out and be seen. Any kind of traditional style holster would leave the gun extremely visible. I carry for self defense, not to make a scene. I would much rather never be noticed. The holster I would even consider using would leave the view extremely similiar to the way it is now.

maybe in this case it would be better to have the gun stand out and be seen.

i believe that people are more inclined to think that a guy carrying in a strong side belt holster in plain view as opposed to having a pistol just stuck down the pants is one of the good guys.

you have to work with public perception if you're going to keep trying to pull this ill-advised statement off.

maybe in this case it would be better to have the gun stand out and be seen
Then I would have the same number, if not more of all the pro- 2nd amendment folks telling me I am just putting a bullseye on my shirt for the criminals to shoot me first. I have heard it all and I just can't win.

how bout a flamethrower? I don't think those are regulated.

CropCircleWalker,

You forgot:

Don't spit into the wind.
Don't pull the mask from the 'ol Lone Ranger.
Don't mess around with Jim.

FYI.

Hehe.


BB62

Jason and others,

I live in Ellensburg and I would like to comment on the issue here.

I am a progun advocate. I am 47 years old and live in town. With the exception of several personal experiences with the state patrol, I would like to say that we in general have a very good police force here.

With that said, I have both pro and con comments to make.

One must realize that Ellensburg is a college town and that we receive a lot of transient visitors both visiting the gorge concert ampitheatre (some druggies and gangs) as well as some rather onerous college student situtations. In particular, the county sheriffs should be commended for the encounters they have with party types from the west side. There is a lot of cultural difference between the community of the western side of the state and eastern side of the state. And the dicotomy there causes some real issues of contrast.

I believe the officer had a right to approach and question you.

I was a 'chipmunk cop' with the US Forest Service for many years (formal training as level II law enforcement). I also know what it is like to be abused by law enforcement. But I also know what it is like to be on the other side of the badge and I hope folks are willing to listen to what I have to say and will take it as good advice and wisdom.

Legalities make life difficult. In this case, the city could be liable if you had been a criminal and the police did NOT resond to a call indicating there was a man in a store with a gun. If you had been a criminal and they did not respond to the initial call, and you held up the store or harmed someone, the city would be liable.

So they have both a legal and a social obligation to check out the situation. At that point in time, they had absolutely no idea who you were or what your intent was other than the caller saying you did not "appear" to be a threat. Unfortunately, many criminals appear as good and law abiding citizens until they commit their crimes.

With that said I might also add, and this is VERY IMPORTANT, that both the officer AND we as law abiding citizens have a responsibility to swallow our pride during an encounter. Both need to realize that the other is "only human". The officer has a job to do. He has feelings just as we do. Many times they are not appreciated for the difficult situations they deal with in our communities. If you had become upset prior to the time he asked for your identification, then I think you were unnecessarily aggrevating the situation. If he had continued to detain you following a check of your identification, then I think you have a right to express your displeasure.

Bear with me a moment. Most people do not carry a gun into Fred Meyers here in Ellensburg. It is not common practice. We should still retain our rights to do so. BUT, we must also recognize that a customer with a gun greatly increased the probability that the customer is a criminal about to commit a crime. NOT that it does imply that you are a criminal, but that it increases the probability. And from a (social) science point of view, that is the only way to determine an appropriate response to the stituation. Until many customers start carrying in Fred Meyers or around town, to reduce those statistics, I think the police really have no choice but to investigate.

I think you had a right to carry. I think that it is good that you and others exercise that right. But I also think that we have a responsibility as gun owners in today's society to recognize that we need to be accomodating to the police until such time as others begin to carry and that statistics show that customers who carry are not more likely to be criminals. As it is today, the reality is, scientifically and statisitically, that those with a gun in a store are more likely to commit a crime.

Now with that said, officers (as well as we as citizens) have a responsibility to remain unbaised and remove their emotions from encounter situations. But, an officer is, after all, only human. And so that is where we need to keep our cool.

I am concerned that you were not cited and that you ended up with a warrant. I think that needs to be cleared up. And I think the city here needs to be held responsible for that. I think that needs to be cleared up and I hope the officers and teh City of Ellensburg are honest in their dealing with this issue.

I have to live here with any new city ordinances that result from this issue. Please note, the fact that we do still have the right to carry here in town is quite commendable. There are few places left. You certainly cannot carry into a store in Seattle or Tacoma. A law suit would cause such ordinances which would be unfortunate. And so I am asking folks to get to the bottom of things but to walk softly.

In regards to the police in Spokane... If your testimony is accurate, then it is possible they jumped to conclusions based on the warrant. The "constitutionalist" comments you said they made tends to support the idea that they had knowledge of a warrant for you on a 'right to carry' incident. Regardless of the warrant, they have a responsibility to remain unbiased and professional and treat you with respect until such time as a court deterimines culpability.

I know how it is for the some agencies to 'create' infractions to make you out to be the bad guy and it is unfortunate that occurs here in my home state. My grandfather was the first federal marshal deputized in Colfax Washington (Davis) in the late 1890s when Washington was still a territory. He was deputized and chased a man on horseback down to Mexico.

Law enforcement implies a great deal and issue of integrity which tends to be lacking in some agencies. And so it hurts me to see this type of behavior. Not something I am proud of and I hope the courts and legislators read the blog here and understand this issue is a reality. Unfortunately, I have encountered this with the state patrol here in Washington State and have lost a lot of respect for those officers. Yes, they deal with a lot of arrogant folks and a lot of real serious criminals. But that is absolutely no excuse to treat the common citizen badly or to create infractions to justify their behavior or to make their actions 'legal' or 'back up' their case. There is some education to do here informing both the citizen AND the officer that BOTH have a responsibility to swallow their pride. REAL officers will enforce that in one another and support each other when it is time to swallow that pride. But the citizen needs to do a bit of swallowing too. Unfortunately, it is hard to find those officers of integrity in some agencies. I have experineced a smilar situation with the state patrol slowing down and chasing me down as though I was hardened crimial and their losing their cool. It is also rather common, in my experience, for police forces to form a rather internal comradarie that is abusive to the average law abiding citizen. The comradarie is good, but the leaders of those forces need to set the law down on how they are reflecting on the common citizen of this state. It is easy to turn law abiding citizens into criminals with the laws we have on the books. And both need to realize what it is like to be in the other's shoes - and to realize that we are all, after all, only human. Just because someone gets upset does not give the officer or the agency the right to 'enforce a superiority complex' upon the citizenry. That, the sense of empowerment and the loss of one's perception as a servant, is in fact the first step to tyranny. And it is that issue that threatens our Constitutional rights most seriously.

I hope this clears up any issues in Ellensburg but ultimately goes back to Spokane to address the professionalism of the officers and the courts there. I am really concerned of how that warrant got on the books if you were not cited. And I an others will be watching this issue closely. I hope both you and the City of Ellensburg are honest as the issue moves forward here.

Kenneth James Boettger
Ellensburg, WA

Please don't go to dirty movies.
Please don't rent dirty movies.

I can see that downloading is still on the table. ;)

This has become a major problem in Washington State for those who may be open carrying for one reason or another. The solution for this is a complete repeal of the statute, or at the very least, repealing it for CPL holders. About the only thing I could hope for is a major voter backlash in 2006 in Washington State, with Rossi in office, but I have some major issues with the Republicans too, so I guess I'm screwed in that regard.

I personally think open carrying of a handgun is legal in WA. Heck, a security guard, ARMED, was carrying on the Tacoma Link, and no one gave him a problem. He sure as hell doesn't have an excemption in the law as a security guard.

Let me suggest the recent example we used here in the State of Ohio. Our recalcitrant RINO governor was refusing to allow passage of CCW. Local guns rights advocates announced publicly they would be holding armed "walks" in high traffic urban areas and invited anyone interested to join in. Despite biased reporting from the media, these events were carried off without problem since LEOs were advised beforehand. These events not only served to pressure lawmakers to pass CCW, but also highlighted that unconcealed carry was perfectly legal. Personally I think this is a good way to desensitize urban residents that anyone who has a gun with out a badge is not necessarily a BG. The unstated threat of a lawsuit for violating the state constitution probably helped. For gunowners in WA. who do not want to seek permission to exercise a fundamental civil right, something similar might be useful.

FishOrMan,

I think it would help this discussion if you were to clarify a point:

In carrying openly, are you trying to
a) defend yourself in the most convenient and effective way,
- or -
b) make a political statement in hopes of changing laws and/or their enforcement?

Both a) and b) are perfectly legitimate motives, and I'll encourage you on either one, but you need to be clear in your mind about which one you're up to because they call for totally different ways of proceeding.

If a), then I think the advice about getting a CCW and carrying concealed is good advice.

If b), then I think you need to look at other communities (such as the Ohio example) where people organized and made effective political efforts out of carrying openly. If you're trying to make a political statement, you need to organize and recruit and publicize and get legal representation and some allies and plan ahead for your "events."

Right now, it seems to me from reading your posts, you are sort of thrashing around between a) and b), not exactly making up your mind what you are up to, and not doing a very good job of accomplishing either objective.

Wildlander, or anyone else, I'm a little confused here.

I've read and reread this thread several times. I see no reference to a warrant other than in the post by Wlidlander. What am I missing here?

I have covered just about every topic on this subject in places.

Why open-carry? It is the only legal method I have to bear arms in defense of myself/family. Protecting the innocent is a duty for all citizens that have the means and willingness to do so.

Why don't I get a CCW and protect the innocent that way? If I ask permission from or pay money to my government I would be acknowledging that I am 'OK' with the government infringing upon my right to bear. I do not willingly accept this infringement.

While my duty to protect myself/family is very important, I find a stronger duty to insure the government I accept does not infringe upon any individual's rights.

I feel I can carry out both these duties by open carrying. If I was forced to pick an option other then open carry, I would rather non-violently break the law and conceal without a permit.


Wildlander, (from Ellensburg),

I have a pretrail court date this Thursday at 9 am, (Ellensburg city prosecutor is asking for a continuance).

The warrant was issued after the citation was sent to my street address, (which the post office would not delivery to). Since I didn't receive the citation, I didn't respond to the citation, therefore a warrant was issued for my arrest.

The citation against open-carrying on May 22nd in Fred Meyer was issued June 1st, which is the day I filed a complaint against the officer's and TEN days after the actually incident. This will be the first thing explained away during the prosecutions case, but it should call the reasons for the citation into question. Why was I "allowed" to walk away from Fred Meyer continuing to open-carry if I was "manifesting an intent to intimidate or warranting alarm for the safety of others"?

Of course, if it wouldn't have been this law, it could just as easily been a "disturbing the peace" kind of law.

I do not believe that just because someone bears arms in Fred Meyer, (or anywhere), makes them more likely to be a criminal, (unless you are called a "criminal" for merely possessing the gun). Many law-abiding citizen's carry firearms concealed everywhere they go. Simply because someone carries openly does not increase their odds of being a criminal. Those intent on committing a crime rarely, if ever, start by peacefully carring openly in public. I think this is backed up by only one officer started his questioning of my wife and I. He did not approach with back-up and guns drawn. He did not prone me out and pat me down. He knew from the start I wasn't intent on committing a crime, but wanted to check me out anyway. The method by which criminals are most frequent apprehended is the ID check during practically random police stops.

I do still agree that police should respond to calls, (not because they can be held accountable, which they aren't), but because it is their job. This does not take away their lawfully requirement to have "reasonable suspicion" before unwanted questioning and ID checks. This response can take many different forms without infringing upon an individual's rights.

-----------quote--------------
While my duty to protect myself/family is very important, I find a stronger duty to insure the government I accept does not infringe upon any individual's rights.

I feel I can carry out both these duties by open carrying. If I was forced to pick an option other then open carry, I would rather non-violently break the law and conceal without a permit.
-------------------------------

This makes it sound as if you do have a political goal here. That is great, and I definitely encourage you. But in order to be more effective politically, I think you need to be aware of and plan for political action instead of letting it just happen randomly when someone spots you carrying in a Fred Meyer.

Like it or not, politics is about what people think and how they perceive things. You want to be sure the message you want to send is the message that is getting across - whether that be to bystanders, the media, or people reading the paper.

Right now, you are being ambiguous in the message you're sending: it's open to two interpretations. One interpretation that could be perceived by bystanders, the media, people reading the paper, etc., is that someone is doing a second ammendment political protest. Another interpretation that could be perceived is that some nut-job dude got caught with a gun in the Fred Meyer store.

If you want your political action to be effective, you don't want to leave open that second interpretation. You want to be perfecly clear to everyone that this is a political statement and you are trying to make a logical, sane, intelligent point about people's rights that they should consider seriously.

If you were to get 20, 50, or 100 people to gather together, in an organized and presentable way, with well-thought out statements, and legal advice beforehand, and make a march on city hall or some such, then it would be clear to everyone that you're making a political statement. You might get quoted in the newspaper. You might get some people to reconsider their posititions.

What you have managed so far is not effective politics. It's not going to change anyone's mind, and it's not going to make anyone think about their positions on gun rights, and it's not going to change any laws or policies. Continuing with what you're doing is only going to generate a lot of trouble for you, without achieving your goals.

If you are really serious about advocating for your right to carry, then get organized and go about it with some good tactics. I applaud what you are trying to do, but I really think you need to re-examine your methods of acheiving your goals.

It isn't going to work.

Soon, you won't have any legal way to even own a weapon.

You will have accomplished nothing.

If you stated your goals correctly, I would expect any adult to be more effective than you will be, and achieve more than anything you're going to accomplish.

The basis for the right to bear arms is that no one has a duty to protect others, and therefore, we must protect ourselves.

Willingness to protect others has nothing to do with it- no one has a duty to protect others.

And finally, the law doesn't care what you believe. The law is the law.

That is precisely how I would want it, otherwise, none of us would be able to carry.

Under our laws, open carry in a Fred Meyer can not only make you more likely to be a criminal, but it can easily make you a criminal. As you're about to find out.

Civil disobedience can and does work, but not the way you're doing it. Civil disobedience can produce real change. You're simply going to produce yet-another-criminal record.

I would like to say that the posts in this thread by Antsi are very well-reasoned and many people could do a lot worse than to follow his wise advice. I thought his comments were spot on as to perception being reality and if you wish to effect political change, you have to be perceived as making a logical and sensible point.

The only thing efforts like that will change is our state economy.

Soon, we'll need more jails, and that will result in a boom for commercial builders, and work for the organized construction workers.

"It isn't going to work.

Soon, you won't have any legal way to even own a weapon."


So be it.

"...LEGAL way to even own a weapon." And I was of the understanding that an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Yes, the 2nd amendment means this should never be a LEGAL matter which the government even has the ability to decide. If government usurps this power, I would like to think that free citizen's would throw off those chains, (not willingly accept them).

Also, I never said a duty to protect others... I said a duty to protect the innocent. Some may feel no calling to do this, that is certainly up to them. Though, I believe able-body citizens should bear this responsibility, (to the point of calling it a "duty").



Antsi,

For me, this matter has not been one of politics. I do not willingly accept that the opinions of the masses should determine an individual's rights. If I fought for the right to bear arms on the political front, that would mean I accept that those opinions have the ability to effect that right. Of course, what any single citizen accepts does not amount to a hill of beans.

This does not mean I don't encourage those around to keep and bear arms. But, I do this because gun ownership is for their own best interests, not for politically gain.

I do wish more gunowners would be willing to make the stand against CCW permits. And I do feel now is a better time for action then later. But, I cannot call up 20 or 30 friends everytime I feel the need to bear arms. In fact, I cannot call up 10 friends who are even willing to make the stand to open carry. They, like most, feel they have too much to lose, and are simply afraid of losing their "legal" ability keep and bear arms, (which, with the way the courts are leaning, is a risk).

On top of all that, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, based in Washington state, continues to ask for gunowners to willingly accept a CCW permit. Some gunowners in Washington are waiting for our legislature to pass a law that makes open carry legal. It would not then become a right, but just another ability the government "allows" citizens to do.



Finally, the court date has changed yet again. The prosecutor called today and is no longer asking for the delay. This means the jury trial is scheduled for 9 am this Friday.

I saw exactly what you said.

I said exactly what I meant.

Others includes the innocent. No one has a duty to protect either, as demonstrated by your admission that it's "...certainly up to them."

If it's up to them, it's not a duty. Perhaps you'd like to choose another word, and re-state your position.

May I suggest "fantasy"?

I remember a post about a fellow who was driving from Pullman to Spokane and was pulled over by a Spokane County Sheriff's Deputy and ended up being jailed for open carrying a loaded pistol. Or as was posted he had an unloaded pistol in his lap w/ a full mag next to it.

Was this you Fishorman? I recall the person being from the Ellensburg area.

Does anyone have an update?

"I do not willingly accept that the opinions of the masses should determine an individual's rights."

Then you deny the underlying foundation of democratic logic. Where do you think the codified rights such as the 2A came from if not the opinions of the masses? They were written to reflect just that, not handed down on stone tablets.

Its about "us", not just "you"

"Where do you think the codified rights such as the 2A came from if not the opinions of the masses?"

I don't THINK - I KNOW where the rights came from. In fact the same group of revolutionaries that wrote the 2nd Amnd TOLD us where the rights come from, something along the lines of "endowed by their Creator", if I recall correctly. No rights "come from" any amendmant, or any other piece of parchment - they are bestowed upon us by God. Putting certain of these rights forever beyond the reach of the "opinions of the masses" was the WHOLE POINT of the Bill of rights.

So, those that say there is no god have no rights?

The framers have been wrong about many things. Slaves, for instance.

Given that, itsn't it also possible that they were wrong about there being a god, and all rights coming from it?

I'm actually in agreement with Jammer Six and Antsi on this one ... and frankly, the whole idea of open carry into a grocery store is simply a bad, bad idea (at least in a college town in Washington state). As to the concept of civil disobediance, I think the common sense rule of thumb is to (1) pick your battles, but especially (2) don't engage in behavior that will not have clear meaning to all who may be witness ... an organized open carry event (perhaps with signs and appropriate pre-liaison with media) cannot be misconstrued ... but a pistol tucked into a waistband of a lone man in a grocery store? Holy cow, that just plain seems dumb.

I do wish more gunowners would be willing to make the stand against CCW permits. And I do feel now is a better time for action then later. But, I cannot call up 20 or 30 friends everytime I feel the need to bear arms. In fact, I cannot call up 10 friends who are even willing to make the stand to open carry. They, like most, feel they have too much to lose, and are simply afraid of losing their "legal" ability keep and bear arms,
Well -- yeah! No kidding ... we DO have too much to lose should we go out on lone wolf fashion wandering grocery stores with pistols tucked in waistbands. I think this type of action does far more harm than good to the RKBA movement in this state. And what type of action would you want gunowners to take against CCW permits in this state? Short of going to "Vermont style" no-permit-needed concealed carry -- which I predict is a dubious proposition at best in this state due to the political make-up -- we have some of the most lenient and least-restrictive CCW laws around as well as a fairly reasonable licensing system with no training or testing requirement (albeit a somewhat pricey fee for the first CPL issue). The best way to make a stand for open carry is to lobby one's elected representatives -- this is the only way to get this concept publicly accepted.

richyoung, not to get this thread further off-track or engage in a Constitutional argument, but I think you're confusing the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of Independence ... the only "inalienable rights" referred to in the DoI as endowed by the Creator are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... and as far as the BoR, the Preamble states that:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights are a list of restrictive clauses placing pre-existing rights beyond the reach of the Federal government, or alternately, reserving them to the states or the people. They don't "give" rights - God gave them to you, (or, alternately, you have them simply by existing). Look at the wordings - "shall not be infringed", shall not pass any law", etc. Also, look at what they do - pretty much a laundry list of what the government CAN'T do. The Declaration of Independence is refered to because it is the instrument whereby a country that needed a Constitution existed in the first place, and spells out the roles and duties of a legitimate, as well as an illegitimate governement. Since both documents were crucial to establishing this country, examination of the first to better understand the second is a technique employed by the SCOTUS, as well as lesser courts.

Where do you think the codified rights such as the 2A came from if not the opinions of the masses?

They are pre-existing rights, and are not "granted" by anyone or anything. My right to bear arms exists because I exist. I own my body and my life, and have the right to defend same with whatever technology I have access to.

The sky is blue, the grass is green.

We have come to the point that there are some of us out there that think that the above is true only because congress passed a law declaring such.

Maybe when we grow up?

So, those that say there is no god have no rights?

The framers have been wrong about many things. Slaves, for instance.

Given that, itsn't it also possible that they were wrong about there being a god, and all rights coming from it?

Typical Seattle-lite socialist nonsense. Whether or not you believe in G-d, isn't of issue, because even if you dont believe in him, he still believes in you. Secondly, read the Declaration of Independance.... "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...". The Laws of Nature is what is also known as Common Law.

Looks like you need a class to understand where rights are derived from, why you have any, and how they differ from a privledge.

Also bringing up the 'Slavery' is a strawman argument.

Old Dog, I would go one step further: there is one more thing necessary, in my opinion, public perception.

In that, I think, the heyday of civil disobedience is over.

Given the best possible outcome of an organized, open carry event, we would still need our opponents to make a mistake.

One person, in a grocery store with a gun will be perceived as a menace, and will do more to perpetuate the myth of fanatic gun nuts than the Hollywood Bank Shootout did. When the police show up, and put him on his knees, that is the image that will endure: a dangerous criminal, humbled by the overwhelming, wise and kind power of the state, unable to move without permission. The police in this scenario will be the heros, whether to witnesses, to the press, or to John and Jane Doe as they sip coffee and read the morning's coverage of it. They'll cluck their tongues, roll their eyes, and forget about it. They'll be glad he's gone, and thankfull we have such courageous police officers- imagine, going into that store to arrest a man with a gun!

With an organized, well attended event, there will still be a piece missing. This isn't the sixties, and today's police forces are just as savvy, just as intellegent, and just as aware as we are. The days of a grainy, black and white sequence of young blacks being swept off their feet by water cannon are gone. According to the History Channel, many American police agencies don't own and won't use water cannon against crowds for precisely that reason: it's efffect on public opinion.

That one image of one young man being carried away in a powerful jet of water did more for civil rights than a thousand peaceful, disciplined open carry protestors could today. The image of sixty pound German Shepard lunging at the end of a leash, and finally tearing loose to maul a protester that outweighed the dog by barely forty pounds created a sense of horror among everyone who saw the news that night, whether they were black or white, rich or poor, that we simply can't hope to match. Those images galvanized a nation, and forced it to listen to it's concience, and that type of image probably isn't available to us outside of pure, blind luck. It could happen, but engaging an opponent as powerful as the anti gun movement is and using luck as a strategy is, at best, a fool's course.

Our modern police agencies simply won't accomodate us. Modern police agencies are far more likely to have a beautiful sergeant, who is college educated, soft spoken, self assured and well managed quietly answering a reporter's questions than they are to overreact, and generate the sense of outrage, of terror and finally of disgust that fueled the civil rights movement and drove it to it's accomplishments.

Police agencies still make mistakes, and at times, the scale can be blindingly large. Here in Seattle, the two recent, best examples of that are the WTO and Mardi Gras riots, but the massive overreaction, on a force wide, simultaneous basis, the kind that civil disobedience depends on to generate real change in a divided society is, for the most part, a thing of the past.

It is good, very good that this is so, but it does mean that if real change is to be had, another way must be found. Power, real power is required. More power than can be bought, more power than any one person can muster.

Courage isn't enough. Money isn't enough. Anger isn't enough. Conviction isn't enough. He stood in front of a tank, and refused to move. In that case, the entire world saw him, and bore witness to his stand. More people in more places in more languages gave their attention to that instant than we could ever hope to attract to an open-carry protest anywhere in the United States.

And now, in the end, he's dead, and China is still the same. Nothing changed. The greatest impact his death had was as my fodder, to make this small, cheap point on an insignificant gun board in another country.

The difference between a revolutionary and a common criminal is simple: victory.

To walk into a grocery store in Washington state displaying a weapon is to surrender.

This does not take away their lawfully requirement to have "reasonable suspicion" before unwanted questioning and ID checks.

I agree with regards to ID checks. But you certainly do NOT need probable cause or even 'reasonable suspicion' to simply talk to a person. And they don't need any such circumstance to ASK for your ID either, they can't compell you to show it to them. But, even I can ASK to see your ID.

Can anyone in WA or anyone familiar with WA statutes cite the specific RCW that allows open carry?? Or prohibits it??

The problem here is that for all intents and purposes neither law exists. There is nothing in the RCWs that specifically allows OR denies the right to openly carry a firearm. There are some vague laws, very much open to interpretation, but nothing really definitive that expressly says wether its legal or not.

The problem here is that for all intents and purposes neither law exists. There is nothing in the RCWs that specifically allows OR denies the right to openly carry a firearm. There are some vague laws, very much open to interpretation, but nothing really definitive that expressly says wether its legal or not.

That's because the US Legal System is based upon negative law not positive law. Negative law is that until a Legislature passes a law that says 'No you cannot do XYZ' then you CAN DO IT. Even though the RCWs don't say you CAN roll over at night while you sleep, it's okay you can do it because there isn't a law that says you can't do it.

Positive Law is the exact opposite, you CAN'T DO ANYTHING until the rulers say you can do it. Want do roll over in bed while you sleep? Don't do it until the ruler says okay!

Think about it everytime the Congress or State Legislature passes a new law it's to restrict or to control an activity of some sort.

>Good for you for carrying

>you have to expect to be hassled in the current environment, that you carry anyway is commendable

>being hassled is not right

>good call on the nice, rational newspaper letter letting people know this

>get a holster, it is the proper and responsible way to carry a handgun.

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.

How did the trial go? What was the outcome?

Here in Micigan there is nothing that says you cannot carry openly. That being said, another aspect of the law mentions brandishing.
In other words, if you carry openly, someone can call the police and say,"just seeing the gun upset me," therefor you are brandishing.
Sound crazy, you bet.
We are in much the same position as you in WA. (we have Meijers stores here also.)
In my humble opinion, we do not have the RKBA unless we can carry openly.
We need a law suite. Bad!!
I wish you every sucsess.

I stumbled into this today. Better description of the story and updates.
dean

fishorman.blogspot.com

In previewing this, the link wouldn't open so I did something wrong. Anyway google it, it's a good write up.

This is the link. (http://fishorman.blogspot.com/)

He was found guilty, apparently on Friday, May 5. As if that's a surprise...

He did nothing for any of us.

I was under the crazy impression that brandishing and "causing alarm" were generally confined to instances in which the gun is out of its holster rather than in it.

Because if it is possible to "cause alarm" or "brandish" without drawing a weapon, then merely carrying a weapon is illegal, and the distinction is a bogus one.

No reasonable person should take alarm at a person merely carrying a firearm, although I would probably get ready to draw if I saw a dishevled man walking around my store carrying a 45 mexican style (assuming I was in an open carry area anyway).

I was under the crazy impression that brandishing and "causing alarm" were generally confined to instances in which the gun is out of its holster
Yes, that is a crazy impression. I have no idea where you got it, but it doesn't apply here in Washington.

No reasonable person should take alarm at a person merely carrying a firearm, although I would probably get ready to draw if I saw a dishevled man walking around my store carrying a 45 mexican style (assuming I was in an open carry area anyway).

Just so we're sharing the same crazy definitions, given your propensity to write your own, private versions, what constitutes "dishevled"?

Long hair? Uncombed? Shirt untucked? Unshaven?

Does all that mean that if I run to the 7-11 at 3 A.M. to get my wife some anti-nausea medicine that I should be careful to tuck my shirt in, comb my hair and shave first?

Or should I leave my weapon at home to avoid alarming you?

One person's alarm is another person's weekend. Generally speaking, when someone calls 911, they're alarmed. If they're alarmed because they saw a weapon, it doesn't really matter whether anyone else is alarmed or not.

It amuses me greatly when I see people contradict themselves, particularly when they're red in the face and sputtering when they do it.

By the way, you probably want to keep personal appearances out of your legal definitions. You're clearly not prepared to deal with the consequences of basing legal actions on someone's appearance.

Have a nice day.