sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Well that sucks! Having your rights trampled by your employees. Good luck in the fight.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Orphan and I apparently made the news....
- Thread starter Thor80
- Start date
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
I know you were OC.
Was there any type of pat downs, wands, metal detectors? Or were CC people allowed to just enter with no issues?
Was there any type of pat downs, wands, metal detectors? Or were CC people allowed to just enter with no issues?
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
I find the date on this to be very interesting...
With the comments made about being licensed to conceal you need to cover up, is this an indication they are aware there is an exemption? Even though there is no requirement to concealed it.
With the comments made about being licensed to conceal you need to cover up, is this an indication they are aware there is an exemption? Even though there is no requirement to concealed it.
Last edited:
Pat Gardner
Regular Member
I seen the report on the 10:00pm news last night,and all they said was that two guys with guns were trying to get in to see Ron Paul. Well i will tell u that i was born and raised in Spokane and i was very disappointed that they did that to u both. if I had been in Spokane i would've been right there with u guys ocing my .22Cal Revolver. I was also disappointed that Khq didn't say that two men who were exercising their 2A rights by ocing their firearms and were trying to see Ron Paul were asked to leave. It seems the news stations never get a story straight. I hope everything goes good with u both on this situation . keep us informed with this and Carry On.
amzbrady
Regular Member
I think the news cast should have done some research and stated "Although Open Carry is legal in the state of Washington, the reason these two open carriers were denied access to the Ron Paul event at this building is because...."
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
The main issue about news agency's they have their own agenda when it comes to this topic of politics and the old concept of telling a balanced non bias story is left back in the dust.
This News Channel had every opportunity to have a complete story.
On the issue of the City Ordinance prohibiting firearms in the convention center is legal, but they must apply the exception as to those in possession of a CPL.
Pat Gardner
Regular Member
I totally agree amzbrady,
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
No wands, pat down or metal detectors. I even asked what wouldyou do if I simply covered up and they said I still had to leave but I could come back in without the firearm.
I asked if they knew that there were a lot of folks there conceal carrying and they said they knew but that was OK because it was not right out there.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Dave I could not get them to come out and say it but they did tell me that if I had a permit I had to keep it covered. Man I don't understand the thought process that allows people to say stuff like that.
amlevin
Regular Member
They're probably referring to the "exemption" in RCW 9.41.300
"(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 "
This would allow the restriction on Open Carry but not if concealed with CPL.
Last edited:
fetch
Regular Member
SMC 10.10.050 was passed before the new council members were seated. That means, new council members may not know about it.
I will be at the council meeting Monday evening.
At the time orphan and thor80 were kicked out I was CC but they knew I was carrying because I told them I was carrying and they did not kick me out. I also had a great conversation with security, the guy in the picture and others, and they know where we stand. They also know they are in the middle. It is not about the security at the facility. It is the city.
I will be at the council meeting Monday evening.
At the time orphan and thor80 were kicked out I was CC but they knew I was carrying because I told them I was carrying and they did not kick me out. I also had a great conversation with security, the guy in the picture and others, and they know where we stand. They also know they are in the middle. It is not about the security at the facility. It is the city.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Still doesn't say you have to conceal though. Just possess the CPL>
kparker
Regular Member
svg,
"Still doesn't say you have to conceal though. Just possess the CPL"
Precisely! We're not Texas or Florida; there isn't the slightest hint of a requirement to conceal anywhere in WA state law.
"Still doesn't say you have to conceal though. Just possess the CPL"
Precisely! We're not Texas or Florida; there isn't the slightest hint of a requirement to conceal anywhere in WA state law.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yep now if we can people to understand the real meaning of "rule of law" .:lol:
Difdi
Regular Member
Definitely.
As far as I can recall, the RCW states that you are exempt, not that you have to prove you are exempt. Having stated that you have a CPL, you should just ignore the idiot(s) until they do something that breaches the peace, then make a citizen's arrest.
No it wouldn't. The RCW does not specify that someone with a CPL must cover it up.
Last edited:
Thor80
Regular Member
Does this not help our case of "discrimination"? If they knew you were armed, but covered how does that differ from Orphan and I? They knew that we were armed also but just not covering, yet we were asked to leave. What would the reasoning be behind that? So now it goes from them essentially stating that it was a "blanket" policy regarding firearms to Orphan and I to them "selectively" enforcing their bad policy to those who chose not to cover..... Also they opted not to do pat-downs/wanding etc and they told Orphan and I that they didn't care how many people inside were concealing because they couldn't "see" their firearms.... It's late and I have to work tomorrow but I'll be posting some more of my thoughts hopefully fairly organized tomorrow....
-Thor
Last edited: