Police ticket man who wore gun in store (WA)

This is a discussion on Police ticket man who wore gun in store (WA) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Archie The law needs to be challenged as 'vague'. Then overturned as not legally sufficient. This is just plain stupid. The Washington ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 57

Thread: Police ticket man who wore gun in store (WA)

  1. #31
    Ex Member Array NavyLT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie View Post
    The law needs to be challenged as 'vague'. Then overturned as not legally sufficient. This is just plain stupid.
    The Washington Supreme Court has already ruled that RCW 9.41.270 is not "vague". They have also ruled that mere open carry of a firearm, and especially in a holster, does in no way violate 9.41.270.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    New Member Array uscbchuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Tally XD View Post
    I hate when laws get twisted and misinterpreted. Kind of like Florida's "3-Step rule"
    there is no 3 step rule in florida. you just cant have it readily accessable. put in glove box, is all thats needed. no cwp required for automobiles. your 4th extends to it.

  4. #33
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by tbrenke View Post
    I sent an email to both addresses and included a note to update department training
    I too sent an email to the address posted. Here is my response that was received today:


    -----------------------

    Thank you for your concern. This has been forwarded to the City Attorney’s office.



    Teri Kenning

    Vancouver Police Administration




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Original Message

    From: Mike Walden [mailto:mwalden63@att.net]
    Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:27 AM
    To: VANPD
    Subject: Open Carry at Albertsons

    I really suggest you read your own training guidelines here and negate the ticket you issued to the man carrying openly in Albertsons. We have laws for a reason and they are usually spelled out pretty well. In this case, I would say your department broke the law.


    Excerpt from the training for the King County Sheriff’s Office
    TITLE OF TRAINING:
    Open Carry of Firearm in Washington

    06/06 1
    RCW 9.41.270 states “It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm 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 others.” Can the men be charged? Obviously people are looking at them a second time when they see the guns in plain view.

    POSSIBLE ANSWERS
    A. Yes
    B. No

    DETAILED ANSWER / EXPLANATION: (provide sources / references)

    The correct answer is: B. No

    In this law, mere possession of an openly carried handgun is not prohibited. In order to support an enforcement action under this law the officer must be able to articulate (describe in a convincing manner) malicious intent by the suspect or circumstances that reasonably cause alarm to the public. In either case, because open carry in Washington is presumably legal, the articulation must include something beyond mere, open possession.

    RCW 9.41.300


    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    And what is this so-called "3 -step rule" and where is that documented. If anyone in FL can carry a loaded firearm in a "closed container," specificly defined as a closed glovebox or console compartment, where are the "required" 3 steps?

    Another urban myth?
    Quote Originally Posted by uscbchuck View Post
    there is no 3 step rule in florida. you just cant have it readily accessable. put in glove box, is all thats needed. no cwp required for automobiles. your 4th extends to it.
    That was my point . . . .

    Three Step Rule does not exist in Florida and never has. However, it was a quick and easy "method" for officers to use as a "guideline" for proper carry of a weapon inside a private vehicle. It somehow got twisted and was, for many years, spewed out as a law.

    Officers wanted to see "three steps" to use of the weapon. No where in the statutes is this supported or mentioned.

    I wonder how many tickets and guns confiscations have happened over this false "law"??
    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  6. #35
    Member Array Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    The NRA officially does not support open carry.
    see what i mean....

  7. #36
    New Member Array CirrusPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by HahnsXD View Post
    Vancouver PD is also the same department that told someone that having a scanner in their car was illegal (it's not) and someone else that their gun must be on their person while driving (not true)...

    I have a scanner in my hummer.. it is where the on(spy)star used to be.. the few times I have been stopped they asked me what the scanner is for & VPD has told to turn it off "I refuse" I then listen to them run me if they use the radio.

    I know someone that has a Cell Jammer in their vehicle which is illegal!

    Many many Years ago we used a program called MDTmon on to monitor computer aided dispatch in Portland than days are long gone.. but lots of interesting stuff came across the screen most modern MDT's use cellular based data. "Hint why he has a cell Jamer"


  8. #37
    VIP Member Array tkruf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Really SW, Virginia
    Posts
    4,652
    I think that the who calls in the MWAG to the authorities should have to show up in court and explain what the MWAG was doing that "so terrified" the poor .
    NRA Member
    Glock 26 XD9sc
    Ruger SR9c Ruger LCP

  9. #38
    New Member Array CirrusPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by tkruf View Post
    I think that the who calls in the MWAG to the authorities should have to show up in court and explain what the MWAG was doing that "so terrified" the poor .
    I agree... he has the right to confront the witness!!!

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array Spec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Metro Detroit Area
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    It's not illegal, but ... the Police seem to be mis-using the laws and making them up as they go along.
    this does not shock me one bit. LEO's like to "shoot from the hip" so to speak...
    NRA Certified Rifle/Pistol Instructor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18CFw0lnD8

    Accuracy ALWAYS WINS! So carry what you can hit with.

    If you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics stink.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    10,946
    If I was arrested as stated by the OP, I would have to get the name of the complaining person, as that is my accuser (who would have to be present in court at my trial) as I have a right to face my accuser. Then after fighting this out in court, I'd file a civil complaint for hindering me in the lawful pursuit of OC. Once you make the complaining party aware that the civil suit will be aimed at him personally, there is a good chance that they will not be willing to follow through with their initial complaint. For the most part they are wanting to hassle you for OC, they really do not want to be hassled back.

  12. #41
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    What are the chances this guy can sue the city and the complainer for unlawful seizure of property and a bundle of other infractions because they caused undue distress and prevented him from protecting himself when he had done nothing wrong.

    I really don't like how people can sue everyone for everything, but in some cases like this, it takes a lawsuit or two to get the local Lefty Police to learn the rules and stop trampling on our freedom.
    Walk softly ...

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,102
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    This dawg don't hunt...
    With an attorney, this will be thrown out in court, and rightly so...IMHO
    Agreed.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  14. #43
    Member Array mrjam2jab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    427
    He added, “Most responsible people don’t display their firearm in public.”
    Nice....let's see how many people we can offend with the fewest words possible.

  15. #44
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Hiram25 View Post
    If I was arrested as stated by the OP, I would have to get the name of the complaining person, as that is my accuser (who would have to be present in court at my trial) as I have a right to face my accuser. Then after fighting this out in court, I'd file a civil complaint for hindering me in the lawful pursuit of OC. Once you make the complaining party aware that the civil suit will be aimed at him personally, there is a good chance that they will not be willing to follow through with their initial complaint. For the most part they are wanting to hassle you for OC, they really do not want to be hassled back.
    What exactly are you going to sue them for, lacking intestinal fortitude or not knowing the law?

    You cannot sue another regular citizen[successfully] for violation of your civil rights, the Constitution protects you from violations of your civil rights by the government and its agents, not soccer moms. That is why we can't charge crackheads who break into houses in federal court for violation of the victim's 4th amendment right against unlawful search and seizure (though it would be really nice if we could, they might actually go to prison then).

    Would it be possible to sue the police in this case? Sure, but probably again not successfully. In this case the defendant was not arrested, but cited. Therefore he doesn't have a case for false arrest. If the officer(s) reasonably believed (although incorrectly) that he was in violation of the statute, then they were not acting with gross negligence or malice, and are likely going to be protected by their qualified immunity and/or sovereign immunity. Suing the government is a long road to hoe even under the best of circumstances. In this case, while it sounds like the police made errors, it would be hard to prove that they knew they were wrong and acted anyway.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,603
    IF.... you can show that the officer knew and /or the police were intentionally stretching the law beyond what it meant or what was intended by it ...... then you might win.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. I wore my NRA hat today and was given the evil eye multiple times
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: April 26th, 2010, 10:15 PM
  2. Police ticket man who OC'd in grocery store
    By st33lcas3 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 21st, 2010, 10:26 PM
  3. Wore New H.B.EHolster,2nd time,With Snake Skin Grips and Bumpers Today,im getting use
    By Tn Mitch in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 11:08 PM
  4. Police recover 127 guns stolen from gun store
    By moparmike in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 13th, 2008, 10:07 AM
  5. The search wore me down
    By Ram Rod in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 18th, 2008, 07:34 PM

Search tags for this page

gun dealers vancouver wa
,
gun shop vancouver wa
,
gun shops in vancouver wa
,

gun shops in washington state

,

gun shops vancouver wa

,

gun store vancouver wa

,
gun stores in vancouver wa
,

gun stores in washington state

,

gun stores vancouver wa

,
gun stores washington state
,

vancouver wa gun shops

,
washington state gun stores
Click on a term to search for related topics.