Great Fun while open carrying
- Thread starter Fishorman
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry but that is a weak argument
So you're saying that it is OK in WA to be in control of a firearm while under the influence
That's because it's a recognized crime and always has been to vote twice in the same election and it's the business of everybody affected by the election.
Apparently they do scrutinize how Fishorman carries
That's what I said, A driver's license or any other ID should sufice for carrying a firearm
The point of my post was that comparing Voters registration has as much to do with the state granting permission to exercise a constitutioal right as registering cars does ( I've heard that argument ot many time too)
Re-reading the account and details brings to mind what can be used as a standard challenge under such circumstances. When a peace officer starts such a silly action and fishing expedition the first response should be the question; "Investigating the alleged offense of ...... ???"
This establishes that it is alleged (or not) that a specific crime has been comitted. The sooner this is established and acknowledged the better. If the "911 call" line is played, the question can be repeated asking, "what alleged crime am I suspected of that was the subject of the 911 call?"
This establishes that it is alleged (or not) that a specific crime has been comitted. The sooner this is established and acknowledged the better. If the "911 call" line is played, the question can be repeated asking, "what alleged crime am I suspected of that was the subject of the 911 call?"
Lak, thanks for the info. I must tell that one to the wife, she has the memory.
There is now another update at the blog thingy. Fishorman's blog thingy
There is now another update at the blog thingy. Fishorman's blog thingy
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Who is "they"?
TheeBadOne
Moderator
I thought you might be referring to "the Police" in general when you said "they".
No problem.. No, that is not what I thought. I am not one of those us verses them kind of guys. I respect police and what they do. It is a difficult job. But when THEY, (meaning any police officer that starts to harass a legal citizen by assuming some level of guilt), start with the us verses them attitude, they have set the tone for the situation. Each being considered, on a case-by-case basis.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
And vise-versa, correct?
I would pray that servants of the people are held to a higher standard. But they, (police), are only humans, and a citizen can also be the one to set the level.
Of course, if I, being the legal citizen, am operating inside the law, I will demand that police do the same. He was warned that he was harassing a legal citizen shopping with his wife. He presumed guilt, which put HIM operating outside the law. More police came and continued to presume guilt, trying to fish up some crime and make a scene.
No, I am not one that puts all police under the blanket title of HERO. Here is my view on that topic: From my viewpoint.
Of course, if I, being the legal citizen, am operating inside the law, I will demand that police do the same. He was warned that he was harassing a legal citizen shopping with his wife. He presumed guilt, which put HIM operating outside the law. More police came and continued to presume guilt, trying to fish up some crime and make a scene.
No, I am not one that puts all police under the blanket title of HERO. Here is my view on that topic: From my viewpoint.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Well at least you admit your bias. That link made it pretty clear too.
All the best
All the best
Bias? So, does someone being a police officer make that person a hero in your eyes?
I stated my "bias," what's yours?
In your eyes does this really have anything to do with what the law is?
Because I have a "bias," (towards being treated illegally), does that justify the illegal treatment in your eyes?
And please, be more specific if you are going to put titles on me such as "bias."
I stated my "bias," what's yours?
In your eyes does this really have anything to do with what the law is?
Because I have a "bias," (towards being treated illegally), does that justify the illegal treatment in your eyes?
And please, be more specific if you are going to put titles on me such as "bias."
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Fishorman, relax. I am not insulting you (nor do I intend to).
bias:
Main Entry: 1bi·as
Pronunciation: 'bI-&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French biais
a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
~~~
Function: transitive verb
1 : to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to <his background biases him against foreigners>
bias:
Main Entry: 1bi·as
Pronunciation: 'bI-&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French biais
a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
~~~
Function: transitive verb
1 : to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to <his background biases him against foreigners>
Sorry, it only seemed that you created a box for me to fit in, which I don't feel that I do.
I have a good high school friend that is a police officer. But, if I am forced to operate inside the law, I would ask my friend to operate within the law as well.
I go through much pain to currently have the right to bear arms. If any public servant acts outside the law, I would pray that the citizen requests and even requires that officer(s) step back inside the law. I might be able to do that in a more polite manner, yes, but we as the citizen's need to keep government in check, one way or another. In this situation, the officer assumed guilt, which is stepping outside the law. It is also one of the main causes of the "us-verses-them" attituded, which is coming about in society, in the minds of police officers and the law-abiding citizens.
But, this is far outside my scope. I can only do my best in the situations in which I am placed.
I have a good high school friend that is a police officer. But, if I am forced to operate inside the law, I would ask my friend to operate within the law as well.
I go through much pain to currently have the right to bear arms. If any public servant acts outside the law, I would pray that the citizen requests and even requires that officer(s) step back inside the law. I might be able to do that in a more polite manner, yes, but we as the citizen's need to keep government in check, one way or another. In this situation, the officer assumed guilt, which is stepping outside the law. It is also one of the main causes of the "us-verses-them" attituded, which is coming about in society, in the minds of police officers and the law-abiding citizens.
But, this is far outside my scope. I can only do my best in the situations in which I am placed.
I'm not aware of any law that forbids a police officer from presuming guilt. Can you post the RCW?
I understand that a person is presumed innocent in a court of law, but I don't think that would bind a police officers actions. If so, it would be illegal to arrest someone before they were convicted.
Ok, this is another one of the problems of the mindset thing. Let me explain. For a government to do something, the people have to give them permission to do it. We do that in the form of the Constitution and the laws that the people have passed through our elected representatives.
If the people have not given the government the power to do something, and that government does it, it is against not just the law, but it is against our representative form of government.
What this means is: it is not my responsiblity to come up with the RCW that forbids police from presuming guilt. THE GOVERNMENT is responsible to come up with the RCW that says police CAN presume guilt.
The officer in this situation came up with the statement of investigating a 911 call of a legal activity. So, I have reversed the question. Can you come up with the RCW that allows for officer's to investigate a legal activity?
No. The people, through their representatives, have made laws that allow for the arrest of individuals when a police officers has probable cause of a crime.
Are you getting how it is that the system works?
In the case of Florida v. J.L., the US Supreme Court ruled that:
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.
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.
VictorLouis
New member
I heartily agree with your sentiment here.
You never mentioned it, but was there ANYTHING about your dress, appearance, manner or language that might've tipped the balance? Were you unshaven, with long(er) hair, wearing clothes from the hamper(I know, not likely with your Mrs. in tow.)? Did you get loud, or frustrated at a problem with your banking, or their sub-standard customer service? IOW, was the sight of your firearm merely the "final nail", in a manner of speaking?
In my my mind, reading the way you wrote this, I'd lay money that your attitude here did NOT help matters any. Matters of law and procedure aside, human beings are human beings. For the most part, the police will reflect the attitude of the party they are in contact at the time.
Yes, kudos to the store!
Did they separate the ammo from the gun, and remove it from the mag if we're talking about an auto-pistol?
It's clear to me from reading the law(s) cited here that you would indeed subject yourself from being the next "test case". However, your demeanor will go along way toward seeing to it this does NOT happen. If you treat folks that you encounter with the upmost of kindness and civility, that will go a long way toward leaving with them with the impression that perhaps gun-owners are not such a bad crowd. When your ire IS raised, for whatever reason, just learn to walk-away. That will, no doubt, reduce the "call-outs" to the absolute minimum.
When enountering the police who've specifically responded because of YOU, the charm must be turned up to full-volume.
"Yes Sir, my firearm is holstered on my right hip. My I.D. is in my right rear pocket. How would you like me to proceed? I take it someone was curious after sighting my handgun?"
Notice the word I used? Not "afraid...alarmed...concerned" or anything which might fall within the purview of the language in the statute.
If all else fails, I really LIKE JimPeel's post
Details, details, details... please read this version for them: http://fishorman.blogspot.com/2004/05/details-details-details.html
There are all the posts with most questions not answered here: http://fishorman.blogspot.com/
I list some of that at the website. The biggest thing would probably be that 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 this 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.
Other then the manner in which I have choosen to exercise my right of self-defense, I was clean shaven, polite, and standing next to my wife most of the time. Customer service has always been great at this Washington Mutual, (minus the current ban on open carrying at this branch). Upon leaving the bank, we stood directly outside of the bank, (within view of the teller and manager), while looking at patio furniture and my wife picking up a basket to do more shopping.
No. My 1991 was in the same condition as when it was taken from me, mag in place. I checked to insure it was loaded, one of the officers turning his head to watch as I did.
Be it known; I DO NOT carry this way any more. Not due to fear of it being seen, or because it looks "too scary," but because, I realized that it could be easily taken from me. (My wife is what has educated me into being a responsible citizen, she having come from a long line of gun nuts). So, I probably would be considered too immature, or young and idealistic, in the eyes of most of the long time gun carrying citizens. I am still knew at this and am being continually educated on the topic.
As for more on the whole attitude thing, I just got done posting on that topic on this thread at the high road, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83423
I stated:
As for MVPEL's post on the supreme courts decision... THANK YOU, TONS for finding it and posting it here. I am reposting it at the high road discussion because similiar objections have come up.
There are all the posts with most questions not answered here: http://fishorman.blogspot.com/
I list some of that at the website. The biggest thing would probably be that 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 this 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.
Other then the manner in which I have choosen to exercise my right of self-defense, I was clean shaven, polite, and standing next to my wife most of the time. Customer service has always been great at this Washington Mutual, (minus the current ban on open carrying at this branch). Upon leaving the bank, we stood directly outside of the bank, (within view of the teller and manager), while looking at patio furniture and my wife picking up a basket to do more shopping.
No. My 1991 was in the same condition as when it was taken from me, mag in place. I checked to insure it was loaded, one of the officers turning his head to watch as I did.
I did that the first time with Ellensburg police and wrote a letter to the editor about it here: http://fishorman.blogspot.com/2004/05/taking-my-gun-for-walk.html
Be it known; I DO NOT carry this way any more. Not due to fear of it being seen, or because it looks "too scary," but because, I realized that it could be easily taken from me. (My wife is what has educated me into being a responsible citizen, she having come from a long line of gun nuts). So, I probably would be considered too immature, or young and idealistic, in the eyes of most of the long time gun carrying citizens. I am still knew at this and am being continually educated on the topic.
As for more on the whole attitude thing, I just got done posting on that topic on this thread at the high road, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83423
I stated:
As for MVPEL's post on the supreme courts decision... THANK YOU, TONS for finding it and posting it here. I am reposting it at the high road discussion because similiar objections have come up.
Last edited:
- Status