WA state residents: Ceasefire wants to ban O.C.
- Thread starter Dave Workman
- Start date
- Status
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Thank you for the news, Dave, obnoxious though it is. Some people just can't stand the thought of other people freely exercising civil rights.
Probably inspired by the recent banning of open carrying unloaded firearms in California.
Seattle is a base for some of the same anti-gun left leaning old hippy culture elements that San Francisco has.
If California can succeed in banning unloaded guns, perhaps they see loaded guns as an even easier fight and want to take swipe at that liberty.
Of course with widespread concealed carry issuance statewide it will be easier to defeat there if the pro-gun elements rally.
Edit:
I made the above post before clicking the link or reading anything. I see you mention California in the opening lines. I should note though that California banned unloaded open carry, which was already banned 1,000 feet from any school property lines under state law. So even before the latest CA ban it was illegal to strap even an unloaded handgun on and go through a regular day, as the roads generally take you well within 1,000 feet of schools multiple times in a short drive.
This meant the legal method to even carry an unloaded handgun openly was to transport it in a locked container, and then remove it from its locked container that allowed it within 1,000 feet of schools during transport and strap it on once you had already arrived at the destination.
One then had to remove the unloaded handgun from their person and put it back into a locked container before leaving so they could once again go within 1,000 feet of schools.
While in WA you can carry them loaded while going about a normal day.
Seattle is a base for some of the same anti-gun left leaning old hippy culture elements that San Francisco has.
If California can succeed in banning unloaded guns, perhaps they see loaded guns as an even easier fight and want to take swipe at that liberty.
Of course with widespread concealed carry issuance statewide it will be easier to defeat there if the pro-gun elements rally.
Edit:
I made the above post before clicking the link or reading anything. I see you mention California in the opening lines. I should note though that California banned unloaded open carry, which was already banned 1,000 feet from any school property lines under state law. So even before the latest CA ban it was illegal to strap even an unloaded handgun on and go through a regular day, as the roads generally take you well within 1,000 feet of schools multiple times in a short drive.
This meant the legal method to even carry an unloaded handgun openly was to transport it in a locked container, and then remove it from its locked container that allowed it within 1,000 feet of schools during transport and strap it on once you had already arrived at the destination.
One then had to remove the unloaded handgun from their person and put it back into a locked container before leaving so they could once again go within 1,000 feet of schools.
While in WA you can carry them loaded while going about a normal day.
Last edited:
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
I don't see that passing. But thanks for the heads up, I'll write the critters and voice my dissent.
I wouldn't be too fast to compare WA to CA. We jealously guard our democracy here, and yeah, we do get the a lot of anti stuff, but it usually gets voted down. They are still burned about Starbucks siding with the carry crowd and haven't gotten over it. They really felt let down by what they thought would be a sure thing anti movement --no firearms in Starbucks.
We haven't exactly had any problems with open carry here. If they ammend the law, I think it should require retention, but that is just my opinion. At this point, I think it is a waste of precious time and effort when they have much bigger problems. Most folks are worried about the economy and losing rights, not giving up more rights and focusing on junk like abortion, religion, etc.
I've been carrying the G27 or G29 mostly concealed. But if they have a problem with it, I have no problem wearing my 6" 686 in a vertical shoulder holster on the outside of my clothes. Either way I am carrying, the only difference is now I'll go out of my way to exercise these rights and "make them feel uncomfortable" or whatever it does to them.
I have a better idea though. We could use the exact same logic and push a bill that requires them to carry. Both bills look pretty stupid side by side when compared that way. Live and let live, step on my rights and I'll go out of my way to make your life difficult.
If that includes sitting on the park bench closest to Ceasefire's headquarters wearing my biggest rig, then that is what I'll do. I have nothing better to do.
I wouldn't be too fast to compare WA to CA. We jealously guard our democracy here, and yeah, we do get the a lot of anti stuff, but it usually gets voted down. They are still burned about Starbucks siding with the carry crowd and haven't gotten over it. They really felt let down by what they thought would be a sure thing anti movement --no firearms in Starbucks.
We haven't exactly had any problems with open carry here. If they ammend the law, I think it should require retention, but that is just my opinion. At this point, I think it is a waste of precious time and effort when they have much bigger problems. Most folks are worried about the economy and losing rights, not giving up more rights and focusing on junk like abortion, religion, etc.
I've been carrying the G27 or G29 mostly concealed. But if they have a problem with it, I have no problem wearing my 6" 686 in a vertical shoulder holster on the outside of my clothes. Either way I am carrying, the only difference is now I'll go out of my way to exercise these rights and "make them feel uncomfortable" or whatever it does to them.
I have a better idea though. We could use the exact same logic and push a bill that requires them to carry. Both bills look pretty stupid side by side when compared that way. Live and let live, step on my rights and I'll go out of my way to make your life difficult.
If that includes sitting on the park bench closest to Ceasefire's headquarters wearing my biggest rig, then that is what I'll do. I have nothing better to do.
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Here is their site:
http://www.washingtonceasefire.org/about_us
Just take a look at the logic and wording. They "honor" a civic leader each month... I guess they couldn't find one in WA to accept the award because they gave it to Michael Bloomberg --NY,NY.
Also, the organization doesn't look too big. Like I say, the antis have nothing to live for really, they just want to take away what you have, the only gain is a negative one. The shooting crowd is really into protecting rights and they have a sport, gear, and in general, a positive gain.
Ceasefire doesn't have a building to go sit by or protest in front of, they have a PO Box, and from the looks of it, they don't have too many events either. I'll bet more people go to the Monroe gunshows than go to Ceasefire meetings.
So folks, what this boils down to is writing the critters. There are obviously more of us than there are of them. Also, they don't seem to have much funding.
It would be nice to know when they have their next meeting so we can all go protest in front of it, but I guess those are secret --they certainly don't have any real contact information. But what else would you expect...
Their site also says we have some of the most lax laws in the country. Funny, we also have some of the lowest violent crime rates too. There isn't a neighborhood in Seattle I won't walk through by myself at night, can't say that about any big city back East.
The only thing this law would do is possibly criminalize an otherwise law abiding citizen for brandishing when, say, their shirt came untucked or the wind blew and the pistol shows.
http://www.washingtonceasefire.org/about_us
Just take a look at the logic and wording. They "honor" a civic leader each month... I guess they couldn't find one in WA to accept the award because they gave it to Michael Bloomberg --NY,NY.
Also, the organization doesn't look too big. Like I say, the antis have nothing to live for really, they just want to take away what you have, the only gain is a negative one. The shooting crowd is really into protecting rights and they have a sport, gear, and in general, a positive gain.
Ceasefire doesn't have a building to go sit by or protest in front of, they have a PO Box, and from the looks of it, they don't have too many events either. I'll bet more people go to the Monroe gunshows than go to Ceasefire meetings.
So folks, what this boils down to is writing the critters. There are obviously more of us than there are of them. Also, they don't seem to have much funding.
It would be nice to know when they have their next meeting so we can all go protest in front of it, but I guess those are secret --they certainly don't have any real contact information. But what else would you expect...
Their site also says we have some of the most lax laws in the country. Funny, we also have some of the lowest violent crime rates too. There isn't a neighborhood in Seattle I won't walk through by myself at night, can't say that about any big city back East.
The only thing this law would do is possibly criminalize an otherwise law abiding citizen for brandishing when, say, their shirt came untucked or the wind blew and the pistol shows.
Gunnerboy
Member
Like i said in my letter to the NRA when they asked for my money, if they want my guns or to ban the way i carry them or use them then they can have them if they survive and can take them off my cold dead body. so basically we have no worries.
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=618203
This thread has the complete email list for the legislature. I just copy and paste the whole thing and send it to them all. This is the best way to ensure this is a hopeless endeavour.
Glad I joined the NRA recently. Because they do have funding and they will dump resources into this.
This thread has the complete email list for the legislature. I just copy and paste the whole thing and send it to them all. This is the best way to ensure this is a hopeless endeavour.
Glad I joined the NRA recently. Because they do have funding and they will dump resources into this.
Gun Prohibitionists Latest Trick: Let's Pass a Law to Make Gun Owners HIDE their Guns
http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/143/27/
The Ceasefire Foundation under the new and improved leadership of "Executive Director" Gregory Roberts, has come up with a new legislative agenda:
This new agenda replaces the failed agendas of previous years, in closing the non-existent gun show "loophole" and the mis-named "assault weapons" ban. This new agenda is also in conflict with its sister gun prohibition organizations across the country. The talking points of other gun prohibition groups is always centered on using the words "hidden" and "concealed" to falsely portray lawful gun owners as menacing criminals. Whether the new strategy represents a blunder by Gregory Roberts that undercuts his fellow gun prohibitionists, or is a calculated move that is supported by his fellow gun prohibitionists, remains to be seen.
Examples of propaganda from other gun prohibition groups are presented below.
1. "The proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 would shred those [state] standards and the public safety judgments behind them, creating a locked-and-loaded race to the bottom in which states with strict requirements, like New York, would be forced to allow people with permits from states with lax screening to carry HIDDEN loaded guns.
Source: http://coloradoceasefire.org/
2. Your right to be weapon free. As of April 2004, Ohio law allows gun owners with permits to carry loaded, HIDDEN guns in public. However, less than 1% of Ohioans have permits and only one in four Ohioans think private citizens should pack CONCEALED weapons (Gallop Poll, 2005).
Source: http://ohioceasefire.org/newsletter/ccw.html
3. Ohio must start protecting its citizens ... End the unpopular "CONCEALED carry" law that allows Ohioans to carry loaded, HIDDEN guns.
Source: http://ohioceasefire.org/solutions
4. We believe law makers should be making it harder to carry loaded, HIDDEN guns in public, not easier.
Source: http://supgv.org
5. While it is generally illegal for CCW permit holders to carry guns around schools, they are allowed to carry loaded, HIDDEN handguns onto school premises when they are picking up or dropping off students, as long as the firearm is not taken out of the car.
Source: http://coloradoceasefire.org/Col-state.htm
6. HB 1205 will allow those law-abiding citizens who have actually committed crimes to carry their HIDDEN firearms to stadiums, bars shopping malls, parks, concert halls, practically any public gathering," said Jean Gratay, testifying on behalf of Colorado Ceasefire in opposition to the bill
Source: http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/kdvr-concealedcarry-gun-measure-moves-on-20110224,0,577188.story
7. Ceasefire Oregon applauds the many legislators who stood up to the gun lobby this year and refused to succumb to its strong-arm tactics. We thank, in particular, Senators Ginny Burdick, Suzanne Bonamici, Jackie Dingfelder, and Floyd Prozanski and Representatives Mary Nolan, Carolyn Tomei, and Tina Kotek. We sincerely thank all the legislators who refused to make it easier to obtain guns or to carry loaded, HIDDEN handguns in our state.
Source: http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/09/oregon-legislators-refuse-to-be.html
8. Barr and Gottlieb are advising gun owners who want to carry guns in public to keep them CONCEALED from view; that is, make sure the danger is HIDDEN. Perhaps this exposes their real concern about the open carry movement – that it eventually will cause a surge in public concern about the far more prevalent CONCEALED carrying of guns made possible by the gun lobby-supported “shall-issue” laws passed in most states during the last two decades making it far easier to obtain licenses to carry CONCEALED weapons. They also likely fear that open carry may intensify public opposition to recent efforts to gradually expand the locations in which CONCEALED carry may occur –such as parks, bars, college campuses, even airports. After all, it’s not the “openness” of OPEN carry that scares people – it’s the presence of the guns themselves and the inherent danger they entail. The only reason there is not an equivalent reaction to CONCEALED carry is that the danger is, by definition, HIDDEN from view.
Source: http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=2012
9. Dangerous people are getting licenses to kill and a new bill in Congress will only make it easier for them to carry their loaded, HIDDEN guns on more streets in more communities.
Source: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/brady-campaign-battles-against-concealed-carry-bill
10. The Brady Campaign opposes efforts to force college and school officials to allow students and teachers to carry HIDDEN handguns on campus and in classrooms.
Source: http://bradycenter.org/search/?q=hidden
11. Allowing untrained, or under-trained, persons to carry loaded HIDDEN handguns in public puts people at risk of being killed or injured, intentionally and unintentionally. It also makes it harder for law enforcement to identify the real perpetrators during a shooting. Allowing more people to carry CONCEALED handguns in densely populated cities, on crowded subways, buses and sports stadiums, is a recipe for disaster
Source: http://concealedguns.procon.org
http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/143/27/
The Ceasefire Foundation under the new and improved leadership of "Executive Director" Gregory Roberts, has come up with a new legislative agenda:
This new agenda replaces the failed agendas of previous years, in closing the non-existent gun show "loophole" and the mis-named "assault weapons" ban. This new agenda is also in conflict with its sister gun prohibition organizations across the country. The talking points of other gun prohibition groups is always centered on using the words "hidden" and "concealed" to falsely portray lawful gun owners as menacing criminals. Whether the new strategy represents a blunder by Gregory Roberts that undercuts his fellow gun prohibitionists, or is a calculated move that is supported by his fellow gun prohibitionists, remains to be seen.
Examples of propaganda from other gun prohibition groups are presented below.
1. "The proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 would shred those [state] standards and the public safety judgments behind them, creating a locked-and-loaded race to the bottom in which states with strict requirements, like New York, would be forced to allow people with permits from states with lax screening to carry HIDDEN loaded guns.
Source: http://coloradoceasefire.org/
2. Your right to be weapon free. As of April 2004, Ohio law allows gun owners with permits to carry loaded, HIDDEN guns in public. However, less than 1% of Ohioans have permits and only one in four Ohioans think private citizens should pack CONCEALED weapons (Gallop Poll, 2005).
Source: http://ohioceasefire.org/newsletter/ccw.html
3. Ohio must start protecting its citizens ... End the unpopular "CONCEALED carry" law that allows Ohioans to carry loaded, HIDDEN guns.
Source: http://ohioceasefire.org/solutions
4. We believe law makers should be making it harder to carry loaded, HIDDEN guns in public, not easier.
Source: http://supgv.org
5. While it is generally illegal for CCW permit holders to carry guns around schools, they are allowed to carry loaded, HIDDEN handguns onto school premises when they are picking up or dropping off students, as long as the firearm is not taken out of the car.
Source: http://coloradoceasefire.org/Col-state.htm
6. HB 1205 will allow those law-abiding citizens who have actually committed crimes to carry their HIDDEN firearms to stadiums, bars shopping malls, parks, concert halls, practically any public gathering," said Jean Gratay, testifying on behalf of Colorado Ceasefire in opposition to the bill
Source: http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/kdvr-concealedcarry-gun-measure-moves-on-20110224,0,577188.story
7. Ceasefire Oregon applauds the many legislators who stood up to the gun lobby this year and refused to succumb to its strong-arm tactics. We thank, in particular, Senators Ginny Burdick, Suzanne Bonamici, Jackie Dingfelder, and Floyd Prozanski and Representatives Mary Nolan, Carolyn Tomei, and Tina Kotek. We sincerely thank all the legislators who refused to make it easier to obtain guns or to carry loaded, HIDDEN handguns in our state.
Source: http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/09/oregon-legislators-refuse-to-be.html
8. Barr and Gottlieb are advising gun owners who want to carry guns in public to keep them CONCEALED from view; that is, make sure the danger is HIDDEN. Perhaps this exposes their real concern about the open carry movement – that it eventually will cause a surge in public concern about the far more prevalent CONCEALED carrying of guns made possible by the gun lobby-supported “shall-issue” laws passed in most states during the last two decades making it far easier to obtain licenses to carry CONCEALED weapons. They also likely fear that open carry may intensify public opposition to recent efforts to gradually expand the locations in which CONCEALED carry may occur –such as parks, bars, college campuses, even airports. After all, it’s not the “openness” of OPEN carry that scares people – it’s the presence of the guns themselves and the inherent danger they entail. The only reason there is not an equivalent reaction to CONCEALED carry is that the danger is, by definition, HIDDEN from view.
Source: http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=2012
9. Dangerous people are getting licenses to kill and a new bill in Congress will only make it easier for them to carry their loaded, HIDDEN guns on more streets in more communities.
Source: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/brady-campaign-battles-against-concealed-carry-bill
10. The Brady Campaign opposes efforts to force college and school officials to allow students and teachers to carry HIDDEN handguns on campus and in classrooms.
Source: http://bradycenter.org/search/?q=hidden
11. Allowing untrained, or under-trained, persons to carry loaded HIDDEN handguns in public puts people at risk of being killed or injured, intentionally and unintentionally. It also makes it harder for law enforcement to identify the real perpetrators during a shooting. Allowing more people to carry CONCEALED handguns in densely populated cities, on crowded subways, buses and sports stadiums, is a recipe for disaster
Source: http://concealedguns.procon.org
Not really that difficult to understand, most of them want guns to not be carried in public (and after that not to be owned, as places like San Francisco voted to outlaw handguns even in the home after carry had ceased to exist for generations.)
Now it looks hypocritical if the same organization calls for guns to not be hidden, as it is sinister and dishonest, and calls for guns to not be carried openly at the same time.
Yet you will find many gun control organizations receive money from similar and many of the same sources.
So different ones can incrementally support reduction of gun rights on a different front without seeming hypocritical.
The war to them is against the guns, how they get there are just individual battles.
In fact they even create pro-gun organizations of gun owners in order to influence their enemy and make them more ripe for 'reasonable restrictions', as well as speak on behalf of gun owners as the pro-gun representatives in favor of restrictions.
The AHSA or American Hunters and Shooters Association being such an example.
Now arguably open carry is a bigger threat to anti-gun agendas than concealed carry. It is open, it is obvious, and once the population is not startled by seeing it because they are accustomed to it (like in Arizona) the war for the mind is largely won.
Concealed carry on the other hand is a hidden statistic, at the emotional level, the level where politics and legislation are often won and lost, it is nearly a non-player except to those that carry.
It doesn't get people comfortable with guns, accustomed to them, it doesn't startle or announce its presence, and really has no emotional impact on society at large, positive or negative.
People around concealed guns can remain just as anti-gun as ever, never being confronted by the reality that there is guns all around them not causing harm. And the population in the middle remains as ripe for anti-gun and pro-gun messages, not impacted by the presence of the guns they don't even see.
For this reason it is not an emotional threat to the anti-gun agenda.
Open carry has to be over reacted to immediately, the public kept uneasy and uncomfortable by displays of it, otherwise the hearts and minds of the people are affected gradually, they become accustomed to the presence of guns, and guns are no longer the boogie man. That hurts anti-gun efforts across the board.
The public at large are aware of such guns, not just those carrying, so it has a pro-gun impact if it lasts beyond the initial phase (which can have an anti-gun impact through shock and the fear of the unknown and unfamiliar.)
Part of the Gun-control strategy is not asking for everything at once, that would clearly seem unreasonable, and lead to little progress overall with a lot more opposition.
Instead they only ask for one new thing at a time generally, gradually, a 'compromise'. After that they can work on the next 'compromise'.
However obviously this means some in different regions or at different political levels will be focused on a slightly different specific compromise at a given time, unless it is one they feel has enough momentum to try and push at the national level, at which time they speak in unison to be more effective at that critical moment.
Last edited:
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Isn't a non profit tax exempt organization not be involved in politics or public policy? What I am looking at here is that they are a tax exempt organization .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Washington CeaseFire is a C3 non-profit organizaion ( Federal tax ID 91-1692840 )."
"All donations to Washington CeaseFire through this form are tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes and are processed by States United and Democracy in Action."
https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5610/donate_page/donate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if they are saying they are tax exempt and offer tax deductions, how can they be 501 C3 and not jeopardize their tax exempt status? Even if they are soliciting donations through other organizations, it appears that they are restricted to a 501 C3 and cannot by law influence legislation...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the IRS
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have their charter revoked or be hit hit with fines and penalties, IF I am reading this correctly.... An organization (as I understand it) can influence legislation and support politicians as long as they are not tax exempt....However they are tax exempt and are offering tax deductions for donations which (appears to me) against IRS rules...
Comments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Washington CeaseFire is a C3 non-profit organizaion ( Federal tax ID 91-1692840 )."
"All donations to Washington CeaseFire through this form are tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes and are processed by States United and Democracy in Action."
https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5610/donate_page/donate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if they are saying they are tax exempt and offer tax deductions, how can they be 501 C3 and not jeopardize their tax exempt status? Even if they are soliciting donations through other organizations, it appears that they are restricted to a 501 C3 and cannot by law influence legislation...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the IRS
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have their charter revoked or be hit hit with fines and penalties, IF I am reading this correctly.... An organization (as I understand it) can influence legislation and support politicians as long as they are not tax exempt....However they are tax exempt and are offering tax deductions for donations which (appears to me) against IRS rules...
Comments?
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
I think that Navy should be the one to offer an counter argument, after all he is like the OC expert on THR.
I think you are on to something, Midwest. First note that there actually two legal entities involved, although the two organizations present a single face to the public.
First, there's "Ceasefire Foundation of Washington", then there is "Washington Ceasefire". Here's some sample tax returns
http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/a/91-1692840/ceasefire-foundation-washington.aspx
http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/c/91-1626162/washington-ceasefire.aspx
I may ask my congressional representative to submit an inquiry to the IRS seeking a revocation of their tax exempt status.
hermannr
Member
Like Navy, I also am a WA resident, and have mainly OC'd for many (over 40) years. I think Zoogster sees the same thing I do. When OC is completely accepted, Ceasefire will have totally lost. Unfortunately, we need a lot of people to OC a lot, to all the time, to obtain that acceptance. The Ceasefire stradigy could be discribed as "Divide and Conquer"
There are certain areas, like North Central WA where I live, where OC is accepted, and there are other areas (Vancouver/Clark county) where some are still arrested for OC. There are two cases in process right now. One was lost to a Jury where 7 of the jurors were firearms owners! Josh Watson's is reported here. Presently in appeal. If he was guilty of anything it was being a Nervous Nelly.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/30/student-convicted-in-open-carry-gun-case/
The charges were "displaying a weapon with the intention to intimidate" RCW 9.41.270(1) D&& Mike Lowry and his gang strikes again, (even though as a political entity he is history).
Unfortunately State V Casad is an unpublished appeal ruling. Hopefully we can get a published favorable ruling on this appeal.
There are certain areas, like North Central WA where I live, where OC is accepted, and there are other areas (Vancouver/Clark county) where some are still arrested for OC. There are two cases in process right now. One was lost to a Jury where 7 of the jurors were firearms owners! Josh Watson's is reported here. Presently in appeal. If he was guilty of anything it was being a Nervous Nelly.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/30/student-convicted-in-open-carry-gun-case/
The charges were "displaying a weapon with the intention to intimidate" RCW 9.41.270(1) D&& Mike Lowry and his gang strikes again, (even though as a political entity he is history).
Unfortunately State V Casad is an unpublished appeal ruling. Hopefully we can get a published favorable ruling on this appeal.
Last edited:
andrewstorm
member
law enforcement in michigan wants to make the laws
Open carry is legal here only because there is no law against it,many police will harass a person open carrying ,run his name,question him or her in an attempt to incriminate,their actions are despicable,and UN American,recently i read a mi.stats police officer update that stated a person transporting a pistol to a place they intend to open carry may be in violation of law,this to me is illegal and may be actionable under federal law 1983,as police are sworn to uphold the constitution,as J F K said we are in grave danger of an announced need for heightened security could be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment that i do not intend to permit to the extent that its in my control,and not long after that shots rang out in Texas,and it was all blamed on a communist sympathizer,was he only a patsy?
Open carry is legal here only because there is no law against it,many police will harass a person open carrying ,run his name,question him or her in an attempt to incriminate,their actions are despicable,and UN American,recently i read a mi.stats police officer update that stated a person transporting a pistol to a place they intend to open carry may be in violation of law,this to me is illegal and may be actionable under federal law 1983,as police are sworn to uphold the constitution,as J F K said we are in grave danger of an announced need for heightened security could be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment that i do not intend to permit to the extent that its in my control,and not long after that shots rang out in Texas,and it was all blamed on a communist sympathizer,was he only a patsy?
Last edited:
Dave Workman
Member
Northwest activists take Ceasefire threat seriously
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...est-activists-take-ceasefire-threat-seriously
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...est-activists-take-ceasefire-threat-seriously
andrewstorm
member
Dave
DARE anyone; organize a march of open carry supporters on the capitol in the state before election day or to try a ballot for an amendment to the state Constitution,such as the right to bear arms for the defence of ones self or the state,as Michigan has,the NRA better send out some good lawyers an stop this UN American activity.....or else they'll lose a lot of ground in a gun friendly decade,............Rights are not privileges, to be rationed to the deserving citizen entitled to such Rights by the constitution, stop them (cease FIRE)by voting them and theirs out.
DARE anyone; organize a march of open carry supporters on the capitol in the state before election day or to try a ballot for an amendment to the state Constitution,such as the right to bear arms for the defence of ones self or the state,as Michigan has,the NRA better send out some good lawyers an stop this UN American activity.....or else they'll lose a lot of ground in a gun friendly decade,............Rights are not privileges, to be rationed to the deserving citizen entitled to such Rights by the constitution, stop them (cease FIRE)by voting them and theirs out.
Last edited:
hermannr
Member
Article 1 section 24 of the WA state constitution...already there, been there forever.
Oh Dave, BTW: I have already emailed Kretz, (ya he is my rep...as well as other things...) about Josh and 270. I can get to Senator Bob Morton if needed. I suggested adding a holster exemption to 270(3) if we cannot just get rid of 270 completely
Oh Dave, BTW: I have already emailed Kretz, (ya he is my rep...as well as other things...) about Josh and 270. I can get to Senator Bob Morton if needed. I suggested adding a holster exemption to 270(3) if we cannot just get rid of 270 completely
Last edited:
Thefabulousfink
Member
I am not opposed to open carry and I would fight against this bill, but, I don't support open carrying for political protests. A responsable person open carring while doing everyday activites can help the public see gunowners as everyday people, however large groups of armed (even polite) protesters can be used against us too easily... just ask the Black Panthers how things turned out in CA.
I do not think this legislation will go anywhere in WA this comming year (too many bigger issues). If it does gain any traction I will call my representatives and protest, but I will not attent any open carry protests. A few negative news stories about armed protesters may be all it takes to turn a little regarded pet-issue of WAceasfire into a major state issue.
We are currently winning in this state, the last thing that we need to do is hand our enemys the ammunition they need to win a round.
That is my opinion and pertains only to the political situation in WA, people in other states will have to make their own judments.
__________________
I do not think this legislation will go anywhere in WA this comming year (too many bigger issues). If it does gain any traction I will call my representatives and protest, but I will not attent any open carry protests. A few negative news stories about armed protesters may be all it takes to turn a little regarded pet-issue of WAceasfire into a major state issue.
We are currently winning in this state, the last thing that we need to do is hand our enemys the ammunition they need to win a round.
That is my opinion and pertains only to the political situation in WA, people in other states will have to make their own judments.
__________________
Last edited:
andrewstorm
member
it is insane
That people in our mist think that they can add laws contrary to our established constitutions and ignore the former and employ a form of selective enforcement to import their wills on the people, the people already have the right to carry arms by state constitution,and the second amendment,so the proper action is to sue for deprivation of rights under color of law USC 1983 sighting the recent supreme court decision affirming our inherent individual right to keep and bear arms. .......it makes you think that there was some substance to what nikita khrushchev said when he banked his shoe on the table and stated :ill take control of your country from the inside out:socialist ideology has taken root in our country since Kennedy was shot,and its now time to stop its spread thru the enforcement of our inherent rights,thru the courts.God bless America and may justice prevail.
That people in our mist think that they can add laws contrary to our established constitutions and ignore the former and employ a form of selective enforcement to import their wills on the people, the people already have the right to carry arms by state constitution,and the second amendment,so the proper action is to sue for deprivation of rights under color of law USC 1983 sighting the recent supreme court decision affirming our inherent individual right to keep and bear arms. .......it makes you think that there was some substance to what nikita khrushchev said when he banked his shoe on the table and stated :ill take control of your country from the inside out:socialist ideology has taken root in our country since Kennedy was shot,and its now time to stop its spread thru the enforcement of our inherent rights,thru the courts.God bless America and may justice prevail.
Neo-Luddite
Member
----
Last edited:
mortablunt
Member
From all the way over here in Maryland, I give my support to those who want the right to know that they are safer in their lives and homes due to carry laws. I of course mean that I support the carry proponents.
Dave Workman
Member
And you are welcome!
Sorry it has to be such crummy news. As you might guess, when I hit some of the boards with this, it went ballistic fast, no pun intended.
There is a value in sticking together, which sadly, many gun owners didn't get back in 1993 and 1994 when some folks stood by and threw handgunners under the bus during the Brady Law debate — hoping to save their Perazzis I suppose, figuring to appease the Clintonites with a "handgun law" ("you don't use a handgun to shoot skeet, so I don't own one...") — and the ugly black gun owners to the AWB, ("Nobody needs a machine gun to shoot deer or ducks...so I don't own one")
I think those folks have either wised up or have departed for the next life because now I think most people understand that an attack on one group of gun owners is an attack on all of us.
I'll stay on top of this one and post updates in this thread.
And for people who think these guys don't have a chance...look how long it took them to pass the Brady Law. The gun prohibitionists are serious as a coronary about this. And once they get it, they will go after state preemption, in whatever state they have a foothold.
Don't sell these people short. They are fanatics.
Dave Workman
Member
As I have often said, if you want to carry a gun, carry a gun. If you want to make a political statement, buy an advertisement or a billboard. Or carry a bullhorn or a sign.
mortablunt
Member
^ I don't think he fired there. However, this would certainly make a great meme.
- Status
