The Real Hawkeye
member
"Oh, goodness me! Please masta, we don'ts wants no mo restrictions on our rights, masta. Wees gonna puts a stops to dis here uppity slave, masta, befo' yooz takes to wuppin us po slaves even mo."
Washington Open Carrying on 5/22/04
- Thread starter FishOrMan
- Start date
- Status
rock jock
Member
You have a lot of nerve. I work within the system to restore our RKBA, as do hundreds of thousands of other law-abiding citizens. When you start to put in the hours and sweat and money that these people have, you can call yourself a true patriot. As it is, the attitude you are displaying is arrogant and immature.
Uh-huh. I'll tell you what, if you really want to show us your bravery in the fight for RKBA, why don't you show up at the steps to the WA state capitol bldg with an illegal machine gun. Why don't you include a couple of pounds of marijuana for good measure? Until you are ready to do that, you are just blowing smoke.
Okay, first question first. Yes I do believe that some legal activities warrant investigating because until intent is determined a responsible cop is going to look at you, match you up with prior experience of his or other cops and think "trouble". Then he needs to investigate to ensure there is no problem.
As for outlawing your method of carry: no, that would be a Pandora's box that I'd rather keep closed. I don't have a problem with you carrying into the bank.
The problem I have is the attitude you show LE when they rightfully come to check you out. I guess that in my view and probably the cops you have had contact with, you fit a profile and they would be irresponsible to not check you out (on the premise that you haven't done anything yet). When he comes to do his job ensuring public safety, you throw an attitude at him that while not illegal, IMO warrants him taking you out back behind the barn for a wuppin' -- maybe beat some good manners into you. But he can't do that, he has to stand there and take your ???? while doing his job. In my opinion you are an ??????? and I would rather see you lose your RKBA just so folks don't confuse us. I don't want the public and LE thinking that all private gun owners are like you.
Just because you can legally do something, doesn't mean you should. Guys like you tend to inspire new legislation.
The Real Hawkeye
member
I have to tell you, people with attitudes such as yourself really turn my stomach something fierce. Apparently, your view of peace officers vs regular folks is comparable to parents in relation to children. Come on, man, this is not the way Americans are supposed to view themselves. "rightfully comes over?" Why is a man suspicious who openly carries in a holster, when it's legal to do so? You're the kind of gun owner that I fear. You would sell us all down the river so long as Big Brother is willing to extend you certain exclusive privileges.
rock jock
Member
I won't speak for riverdog, but my personal opinion is because it is an unusual enough activity (i.e., outside the realm of typical behavior) that it warrants further investigation. That, BTW, is the mark of a good cop, one that is keeping an eye out for activity, very likely legal but which appears to be suspicious. In an age ot terrorism on our own shores, investigation of unusual activites is one way that LE will save lives, BTW.
Again, I don't want to speak for riverdog, but my feeling for you is mutual.
If FishOrMan was carrying openly in a holster (say a typical Bianchi strongside holster) he'd probably draw less attention to himself. But he isn't using a holster. He's got some rig so he can carry inside his waistband front and center. The grip is visible so it's open carry. Where did you get the idea he was using a holster?
Deavis
Member
Riverdog:
1) LE had no reason to confront him, the fact that you think they do implies that you think we are subject to their whim and their personal judgement. They could have easily observed objectively and decided that he was not a threat, however they chose to make the confrontation into a situation. Remember, LE isn't supposed to inject personal judgement, either he was breaking the law (confrontation) or he wasn't. In this case he was not and thus such a huge confrontation (Code-1) was uncalled for.
2) Manners... Yes, we should all be polite to each other but when 4 more people show up to question your lawful right, how do you expect anyone to be civil after about 5 minutes of "informal interrogation?" 5-1 is harrassment in my book and if it had been a 1-1 situation, then he would have been misbehaving. However, that police officer knows he is going to have to deal with bad manners, that is part of his job, I don't feel sorry for the tongue lashing he received for trying make FishOrMan feel bad for a *legal* activity
3) This sentence, "I would rather see you lose your RKBA just so folks don't confuse us" is really disturbing. Sometimes I see people at a gun show dressed in camo, carrying 6 guns, 5 knives, and every "tactical" knick-knack there is. At first I said, "Man that guy is giving gun owners a bad name," then I realized that thinking that meant I was being prejudiced. Just because I don't like the way he was dressed, the guns he carried, or the useless crap he had strapped on, it was his right and I must accept that if I am to keep my own rights. I would rather have 1 of them on my side than 10 duck hunters because at least when it comes to a fight, I know he will stand up for all my rights, rather than just some of them that suit his selfish needs. Nobody needs a... is the first sentence out of any anti's mouth. Now it is... Nobody needs to carry like....
Why does an honest man walking around with a gun inspire so much fear? Sigh, so much for rugged individualism.
1) LE had no reason to confront him, the fact that you think they do implies that you think we are subject to their whim and their personal judgement. They could have easily observed objectively and decided that he was not a threat, however they chose to make the confrontation into a situation. Remember, LE isn't supposed to inject personal judgement, either he was breaking the law (confrontation) or he wasn't. In this case he was not and thus such a huge confrontation (Code-1) was uncalled for.
2) Manners... Yes, we should all be polite to each other but when 4 more people show up to question your lawful right, how do you expect anyone to be civil after about 5 minutes of "informal interrogation?" 5-1 is harrassment in my book and if it had been a 1-1 situation, then he would have been misbehaving. However, that police officer knows he is going to have to deal with bad manners, that is part of his job, I don't feel sorry for the tongue lashing he received for trying make FishOrMan feel bad for a *legal* activity
3) This sentence, "I would rather see you lose your RKBA just so folks don't confuse us" is really disturbing. Sometimes I see people at a gun show dressed in camo, carrying 6 guns, 5 knives, and every "tactical" knick-knack there is. At first I said, "Man that guy is giving gun owners a bad name," then I realized that thinking that meant I was being prejudiced. Just because I don't like the way he was dressed, the guns he carried, or the useless crap he had strapped on, it was his right and I must accept that if I am to keep my own rights. I would rather have 1 of them on my side than 10 duck hunters because at least when it comes to a fight, I know he will stand up for all my rights, rather than just some of them that suit his selfish needs. Nobody needs a... is the first sentence out of any anti's mouth. Now it is... Nobody needs to carry like....
Why does an honest man walking around with a gun inspire so much fear? Sigh, so much for rugged individualism.
FishOrMan
Member
I am as well. We both want to regain our freedoms.
I don't believe that we, as a whole, will be able to regain those freedoms by acting like the servants in situations like the one in Fred Meyer. I certainly could have made a friend with officers, by acting like the servant that needs to explain to the master the reasons for his legal activities. But, it would have only been, ME gaining the "right" to carry because the police officer would have felt that this ONE individual, was "friendly enough" to carry a gun, (that is plainly another form of asking permission). I feel it is quite the opposite that needs to happen. Our government needs to explain the reason for their activities, by citing what laws we have passed to allow for them to do such activities. He had no such law allowing him to do this activity.
I would claim that the man carrying the AK-47 in Seattle tried to exercise just such a right. Maybe not the smartest way to approach this issue, (but I give him kudos for taking a stand).
Each one of us should be taking small bites to restore our rights. Those small bites will lead to acknowledgment that taking your AK-47 for a walk is a legal activity. An issue that probably should be started out in the woods, (in Eastern Washington where my wife and father-in-law have seen it done). And then slowly pushed from that point, into the main stream.
In Washington state, standing up for my rights by legally carrying openly is risking arrest under some obscure law. Maybe it is only blowing smoke... but the biggest fires had only a little smoke when they started.
Actually, once the bank teller made the call, LE was on the hook to investigate. To investigate, the single LEO needed to determine who he was dealing with and what was actually happening. FishOrMan's attitude is what brought in the other cops.
My statement about losing RKBA may have have been a bit over the top, but WA has such easy carry laws that getting in LE's face just because you can is really myopic and foolish. I've had a WA carry license and it was (and still is) really simple. I didn't ask permission as FishOrMan indicates. I applied for the license and once the background check came in clean they had no choice but to issue the license. It's a "shall issue" state -- piece of cake.
If FishOrMan wants to make a point, send him down to CA so he can try making his point in a state that has tough carry laws. Besides pissing off some cops in WA, what has he really accomplished -- zip, zero, nada f'n thing. I'll take Jim March working in Sacramento any day over FishOrMan pissing off folks in Ellensburg.
FishOrMan
Member
For those that don't know or objection to the method in which I carry my handgun...
I keep my handgun as close to concealed as I am legally allowed. Some have referred to that as "mexican style," and even "banger style." I do this as to not get noticed or become a target for criminals and to keep the element of suprise. This link shows very similiar to how I was dressed and the look of the gun, except it was carried up front, http://www.ccwclip.com/1911Product.html
I realize that the manner I exercise my right to self-defense will get me condemned in quite a few folks eyes here. I would much rather be carrying concealed in most situations, but then that would make me the the criminal.
It is a piece of cake that you had to ask for a permit to receive. You had to pay money to receive this so called "right." You were assumed guilty before receiving this "piece of cake."
As for this comment:
By way of MVPEL over at The Firing Line, there is this supreme court decision. Florida vs J.L.
I keep my handgun as close to concealed as I am legally allowed. Some have referred to that as "mexican style," and even "banger style." I do this as to not get noticed or become a target for criminals and to keep the element of suprise. This link shows very similiar to how I was dressed and the look of the gun, except it was carried up front, http://www.ccwclip.com/1911Product.html
I realize that the manner I exercise my right to self-defense will get me condemned in quite a few folks eyes here. I would much rather be carrying concealed in most situations, but then that would make me the the criminal.
Not the attitude of a free man, but one that is being slowly pushed inside a cage.
It is a piece of cake that you had to ask for a permit to receive. You had to pay money to receive this so called "right." You were assumed guilty before receiving this "piece of cake."
As for this comment:
INCORRECT!
By way of MVPEL over at The Firing Line, there is this supreme court decision. Florida vs J.L.
In other words, peacably carrying a firearm openly in a state where such is legal is not sufficient grounds to establish the reasonable suspicion of planned or actual illegal activity necessary for a Terry stop. THANKS FOR FINDING AND POSTING, MVPEL!
Uh huh. The 50 state's have a lot of discretion when it comes to "how" they allow their citizen's to carry and RKBA in general. What you assume to be a "right" to carry openly could be legislated out and the current governor in WA would sign it. You are carrying openly on a priviledge allowed by current legislation. The Washington State constitution can be amended and that would not be a good thing.
TheBluesMan
Senior Member
Closed due to members disagreeing and being disagreeable. Not The High Road.
- Status