Carry question

and, btw, Mr. Dodson, you also need to pay more attention in your military training as well or you would no that Commanding Officers cannot put commissioned officers "on restriction". And, Mr. Dodson, if you had paid more attention in tactics training, you would know that the "element of surprise" is an offensive tactic, not a defensive tactic. We carry our firearms for defense. It is well established that a visible show of the capability of force is the defensive tactic of choice.

You are correct on one point, Mr. Dodson, I could have been arrested. And the arresting officers would have faced the same fate as the arresting officers in St. John v. Alamogordo (New Mexico), State (Washington) v. Casad, and State (Washington) v. Spencer. I would recommend you study up on your case law:

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4db81919e706a634e17c7a54b1579ef&action=downloads;cat=4
 
Last edited:
I am afraid that you, and officers who think like you, are mistaken regarding 9.41.270. And that is exactly one of the reasons why we open carry, is to educate.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately the law, as written, is subjective. If the officer has reason to believe the reporting party's (RP)complaint then he/she can lawfully arrest you and provide you the opportunity to educate the prosecutor's office, court and jury (if it goes that far). If you fail then you're subject to the prescribed criminal penalty.

The law is not about restricting your right to bear arms. The law is about conduct that creates "alarm for safety." That is element of the case, not your right to keep and bear arms.

and, btw, Mr. Dodson, you also need to pay more attention in your military training as well or you would no that Commanding Officers cannot put commissioned officers "on restriction".
Click to expand...
You might be correct. I was under the impression that a CO can do whatever he wants as long as it's a lawful command. He/she cannot restrict a subordinate to his/her quarters, ship, base or brig, given that he/she might be a danger to a community - a region sensitive to sailors who killed others after being released from custody for having a gun? (See http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19901212&slug=1109014 ) I was a raghat so I'll confess my ignorance to the politics of how officers might be treated differently.

It's cops like you that will pick at law abiding citizens doing nothing wrong that law abiding citizens need to start standing up to and say, "enough is enough".
Click to expand...
You may appear to be a law abiding citizen AT THE MOMENT. We don't KNOW that "you're doing nothing wrong". If we receive a report of an MWAG from an alarmed citizen then it's our duty to investigate. If we have reason to believe that a crime has been committed (your conduct created genuine alarm for another's safety before we arrived) then we have probable cause to arrest you.

Your handgun may very well be holstered when an officer arrives to investigate. If the RP is a dishonest anti-gunner (and we all know there's none of those lurking the Puget Sound region) who would like nothing more than to see you arrested and your gun confiscated and is willing to make false statements about your conduct to make this happen, and the anti-gunner appears to be genuinely alarmed and his/her story credible, then guess who's going to be arrested and charged? The RP is a situation that's beyond your control. Being antagonistic doesn't help you either.

And, Mr. Dodson, if you had paid more attention in tactics training, you would know that the "element of surprise" is an offensive tactic, not a defensive tactic. We carry our firearms for defense.
Click to expand...
So if you're walking down the street and a thug selects you as a victim, do you think he'll be surprised when you unexpectedly present your gun in defense? Will there be a surprising mismatch between his expectations and reality if he expected you to be his unarmed victim? Do you think it will reset his OODA Loop?

If you're interested in learning about tactics, I encourage you to study "Tools of Tactics": http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/tools_of_tactics.pdf

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Mr. Dodson,

You are misquoting the exact statute that you posted.

This is your statement:

The law is not about restricting your right to bear arms. The law is about conduct that creates "alarm for safety." That is element of the case, not your right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

That is not at all what the law is about. Read the statute that you posted:

(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.
Click to expand...

How hard is it for a cop to get a MWAG call, show up at the scene, see a person engaged in normal activity such as shopping at Wal Mart, eating dinner in a restaurant, watching a movie, notice that the subject is LAWFULLY in possession of a firearm, and sign it off without ever even having to approach the subject? "Yep, he's carrying a gun all right. Too bad that law does not make that illegal, and too bad Washington State Supreme court says that does not WARRANT alarm, and too bad that if the legislature's intent was to make that action illegal, they would pass a statute against open carry."

You seem to be all for "protecting and serving" the mis-informed person making the 911 call about a MWAG. Why don't you show equal concern for "protecting and serving" the MWAG who is LAWFULLY carrying his firearm?

And, why does law enforcement feel the need to "investigate" the lawfulness of possession of that firearm by checking the serial number of the gun? Let's say I get out of my vehicle in Wal Mart, carrying a TV in my arms to return and a gun on my hip and LEO gets a MWAG call. Why does LEO feel the need, if "investigating" to run the number of the gun? If I wasn't LAWFULLY carrying a gun, would LEO stop me and check on my ownership papers for the TV set?!? Running the serial number of a gun, absent any reasonable suspicion that gun is stolen, is ILLEGAL and a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
 
Last edited:
Hook686,

As I have stated, I am a law abiding citizen. I do not carry, openly or concealed, on base, at the Post Office, in an area posted >21 by the liquor control board, in courthouses, in the controlled area of a jail or mental institution, on school property other than incident to dropping or picking up a student, nor in the sterile area of an airport.

We all have our limits. You can feel free to express you disagreement with my limits and I can feel free to disagree with your limits. My limits, so far, are based upon what is statutorily legal and what is not. I WILL NOT adjust my behavior to suit the opinions and the whims of law enforcement nor elected public officials.

Would I carry in a Seattle public park or recreation facility against ex-Mayor's Nickels illegal gun ban? ABSOLUTELY. Why? Because it is not against the law. Mayor Nickels did not enact any statute or ordinance making carrying a firearm a criminal act, because state law does not allow him to do that. His claim of "ownership" of public property and therefore acting as "owner" of the property and being able to prohibit guns based on that "ownership" is preposterous AND ILLEGAL. I feel no obligation to support the ILLEGAL actions of public officials and/or the ILLEGAL actions of law enforcement.

Now, if it comes down to a Federal law banning firearms possession similar to the D.C. gun ban that was unconstitutional - we will have to cross that bridge when it comes. I hope that there will be a movement of "take our guns from our dead hands" because a lone voice, in that case, is a lone voice that won't be heard for very long.

Places I have open carried - banks, Seattle public parks, Washington State Department of Licensing, the "National Night Out" which is a picnic encouraging positive contact between LEO agencies and the public, Washington State liqour stores, Tacoma public transportation, my military division's adopt a highway cleanup, my entire command's beach cleanup<- acting executive officer at the time, by the way. There is also a photo of our executive officer re-enlisting a sailor who is open carrying in the city park.
 
Warrant = Justifies (e.g., justifies alarm for the safety of other persons). The justification can be real, reasonably perceived or maliciously fabricated.

How hard is it for a cop to get a MWAG call, show up at the scene, see a person engaged in normal activity such as shopping at Wal Mart, eating dinner in a restaurant, watching a movie, notice that the subject is LAWFULLY in possession of a firearm, and sign it off without ever even having to approach the subject? "
Click to expand...
It's an officer's sworn duty to investigate. At minimum I expect an officer to make contact, explain the reason for the contact (received a citizen report), request identification, request a statement, and check WACIC and NCIC to ensure that the subject is indeed in lawful possession. Normal SOP.
 
Last edited:
It's an officer's sworn duty to investigate. At minimum I expect an officer to make contact, explain the reason for the contact (received a citizen report), request identification, request a statement, and check WACIC and NCIC to ensure that the subject is indeed in lawful possession. Normal SOP.
Click to expand...

So, let's say that you get a MWAG call from a shopper in Wal Mart. The 911 operator does not screen the call properly as in, "What is this MWAG doing? Answer: Shopping. Where is the gun? Answer: On his belt, in a holster. Thank you for calling, but there does not appear anything suspicious or illegal going on."

Anyway, I degress... all the 911 operator gets is a description. There is a man with a gun at Wal Mart, white male, very short reddish hair, black t-shirt, blue jeans, about 40 years old, maybe 6 ft. tall, carrying a pistol. You show up to find me leaving Wal Mart, with a shirt in a sack in one hand and a handgun in a holster on my hip in Bremerton, WA.

You begin to conduct your "Normal SOP", and my first answer to your questions is, "Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to leave?"

Now what?
 
Here's even a better one. There are 10 of us meeting at Frank's Place (restaurant in Oak Harbor, WA), we are all openly carrying our firearms (we do that - we gather at places to meet each other). A FRANTIC person calls 911 - "OMG! There are 10 guys at Frank's and they are all carrying guns! You've got to do something now! I was going to eat there and I walked in and saw them and I am terrified, so I am calling you from two blocks away, I think they are about ready to shoot up the place!"

You walk in to Frank's Place restaurant, and, sure enough, there we are eating breakfast - the waitress is pouring coffee - and we are chatting with each other. Frank even knows a couple of us because we are regulars, but the rest just came into town for the gathering.

Now what?
 
Detain you, if necessary, while I investigate the matter. That is my legal duty.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, Mr. Dobson, you have just gotten yourself, the police department (if this is departmental SOP), and the city into a major lawsuit. The courts in free states such as Washington and New Mexico will not tolerate this behavior by police officers. In either of the two cases I presented, you had no reasonalbe nor articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed, was about to committed, and had observed no illegal behavior yourself.

I notice that your business is located in Florida. May I direct your attention to Florida v. J.L.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993

After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.


Held : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 327 . The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.
Click to expand...

The ONLY difference in my scenarios and the above scenario is that my open carry of a firearm, in Washington, is legal and is protected by the Washington constitution, Washington state law, and held to be lawful behavior NOT warranting suspicion or "fear for safety" by the Washington Supreme Court.

I hope we get to meet in person some day, Mr. Dobson. I would like to introduce you to a group of people who won't allow themselves to be burdened by the illegal actions of police who are acting on their own agendas and opinions vice acting within the bounds of laws and person's rights.

In light of the above Florida Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Dobson, I would suggest that you remove this:

Display your gun, go to jail.

You should expect to be arrested by police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime your concealed handgun is seen by another citizen in public, regardless of how unintentional or innocent or justified the situation might seem. Choose a method of carry that keeps your gun reliably hidden from public view at all times.

You have no control over how a stranger will react to seeing (or learning about) your concealed handgun. He or she might become alarmed and report you to police as a "man or woman with a gun." Depending on his or her feelings about firearms, this person might be willing to maliciously embellish his or her story in attempt to have your gun seized by police or to get you arrested. An alarmed citizen who reports a "man with a gun" is going to be more credible to police than you when you're stopped because you match the suspect's description, and you're found to have a concealed handgun in your possession.
Click to expand...

from your business website as it is clearly against the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court, or, at a minimum, offer the Florida Supreme Court case ruling as a valid defense.

The statement above from your website almost appears as if you are supportive and condone illegal actions when performed by law enforcement officers.
 
Last edited:
Also, Mr. Dobson, I failed to answer a question you posed earlier:

So if you're walking down the street and a thug selects you as a victim, do you think he'll be surprised when you unexpectedly present your gun in defense? Will there be a surprising mismatch between his expectations and reality if he expected you to be his unarmed victim? Do you think it will reset his OODA Loop?
Click to expand...

Let's see what the experts say about that...

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Social Institutions and Social Change) ,Peter H. Rossi (Author), James Wright (Author)

Interviewing felony prisoners in ten state correctional systems in 1981, Wright and Rossi found extensive information suggesting that gun control laws have relatively little effect on violent criminals. For example, only 12% of criminals, and only 7% of the criminals specializing in handgun crime, had acquired their last crime handgun at a gun store. Of those, about a quarter had stolen the gun from a store; a large number of the rest, Wright and Rossi suggested, had probably procured the gun through a legal surrogate buyer, such as a girlfriend with a clean record. Fifty-six percent of the prisoners said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that "One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Thirty-nine percent of the felons had personally decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun, and eight percent said the experience had occurred "many times." Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims.
Click to expand...

How many people do you see open carrying in everyday life (none in Florida, obviously), but in free states? WA, WY, ID, MT... maybe 1/2 of one percent? Why would a criminal choose to attack a target that he/she KNOWS is hardened and KNOWS has the ability to kill them, when they could simply go one or two blocks down the road, or go to the store next door, or wait two minutes, and have HUNDREDS of targets walking by that aren't visibly hardened?

I would rather go with the odds that are in my favor, that the bad guy will see my gun and simply wait for me to be gone, then to have to use my gun in self defense after an attack has begun.
 
NavyLT,

Good responses! Unfortunately we have many LEOs who believe because they have a badge and a gun they can tell everyone what to do and how to do it, without regard to our American Freedoms.

These type of LEOs are what enables a police state to exist.

Hitler did not personally gas even one Jew, but his hirelings followed his orders and did it for him. If a dictator could not get willing hirelings he would not survive.

Hitler did not begin his career by gassing Jews. He built up to it by nibbling away at Germany’s laws with the aid of hirelings.

NavyLT, we need more like you.

Thank you,
Clay
 
hmmmm is there a ferderal law against carrying on a military base, or is that on the direction of the base commander ?
 
NavyLT wrote:

you had no reasonalbe nor articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed, was about to committed, and had observed no illegal behavior yourself.
Click to expand...


hmmm isn't the determination of whether, or not an action is 'reasonable' a decision for a court of competent jurisdictioon, and not one individuals personal opinion ?
 
Hook686,

hmmmm is there a ferderal law against carrying on a military base, or is that on the direction of the base commander ?
Click to expand...

Both. 18 USC 930 is statute, and there are other Federal regulations that give the base commander LEGAL authority to regulate firearms possession on the military base. Now, that authority may not be constitutional, BUT for the moment, it is legal authority. What we are discussing regarding LEO, however, is actions taken by that LEO with no LEGAL authority to do so - the US Supreme Court has ruled that they have no legal authority to conduct the actions that we are discussing.

Here's an example of a personal line for me:

No weapons on base, OK - that's based on Federal law and statutory authority. Weapons in base housing must be registered with base police, OK - again based upon statutory authority.

Privately owned weapons must be registered with base police by military members who live off base and rent from private parties or own their homes. No way. I would not comply with that and would fight for any of my subordinates who did not comply. That order would not be based upon any statutory authority.
 
Last edited:
Hook686 said:
hmmm isn't the determination of whether, or not an action is 'reasonable' a decision for a court of competent jurisdictioon, and not one individuals personal opinion ?
Click to expand...

Certainly. However, LAWFUL resistance to an illegal action taken against a person is a right possessed by that person at the time the illegal action is taken, regardless of whom the person is purpetrating that illegal action.

For instance, here is an example of 5th amendment rights given up everyday and you may not even realize it:

Cop pulls you over while driving. What is usually one of the first things that cop asks you? "Do you know why I stopped you?" You answer, "Yes, I wasn't thinking and I just totally blew past that stop sign back there..."

Guess what... you just gave up your 5th amendment rights! Now, what if the cop says, "Well, actually, you have a license plate screw missing and your license plate is about to fall off, but.... thank you, here's a ticket for failure to stop!"
 
NavyLT wrote:

I would like to introduce you to a group of people who won't allow themselves to be burdened by the illegal actions of police who are acting on their own agendas and opinions vice acting within the bounds of laws and person's rights
Click to expand...

How is it determined exactly who is acting within the 'bounds of law' and who is acting on 'their own agenda' ?
 
How is it determined exactly who is acting within the 'bounds of law' and who is acting on 'their own agenda' ?
Click to expand...

A person must assume the responsibility for themselves about how much they want to research actual statutes and case law behind those statutes. For instance, it is very easy for a LEO to say, "Your gun, carried in plain sight, CAUSED someone to be afraid, and CAUSING someone to be afraid with a gun is illegal."

Some people, would simply go with that and, at that point, succomb to whatever action the officer requested - show me ID, show me a carry permit, let me take your gun, let me run the serial number to see if the gun is stolen or not, let me handcuff you, let me confiscate your gun until the court hearing, let me confiscate or even "revoke" your carry permit. They may get a $100+ citation right there on the spot and simply pay it.

Some people would say... now wait a minute.... first, let's call your supervisor here. Second, show me the statute that says what you say it does. In fact, let me tell you that it is RCW 9.41.270 and the word in 9.41.270 is WARRANTS, not causes. Thirdly, my actions are not causing fear in anyone. I am not DOING anything with my gun. My gun is simply in a location that it is allowed, by law, to be. If I were actually DOING something to cause fear, that would be different, but what I am DOING is shopping, eating, etc.

That decision, however, is the responsibility of the person subjected to the action at that particular moment. My personal advice, is to not physically resist an officer. We know how that is going to end. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with protesting an officer's action, when it is clear to the protestor, that the officer is operating outside the bounds of law.

Finally, when all else fails, just call the officer's bluff squarely - OK, you tell me this is illegal. You tell me you COULD arrest me. Then let's just do that, get this discussion over with and let the courts settle it out. If you honestly believe my behavior is illegal, then write me a citation or arrest me, otherwise I am leaving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top