Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: 911 MWAG call == RAS/PC here in WA? A not-so-hypothetical case.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    26

    Question 911 MWAG call == RAS/PC here in WA? A not-so-hypothetical case.

    For discussion purposes:

    1) Being one of those unfortunate folks who was wooed by the advertising charms of "big tobacco", you're standing outside a 'mom-n-pop' store enjoying a very nice afternoon and having a smoke before going inside to do some shopping.
    2) You're known by name by all of the staff of said store, and because of conversations in the past, there is absolutely no question that they are completely aware that when you walk in, it's a near certainty that you've got a gun on your belt, regardless of whether it's actually visible on any given visit - Point being made with this detail is that there are exactly two chances that one of them is going to drop a dime on you as a "big-ol-scary MWAG" - "Slim" and "None". And Slim was seen leaving town earlier this morning.
    3) The store in question is literally across the street from a high school (Important detail due to the wad of worthless feel-good stupidity often called the GFSZA - Doncha just LOVE how well that one worked in preventing those little dust-ups at Columbine and VA Tech?)
    4) You do have a valid WA CPL on your person, although you're not choosing to conceal right now.
    5) You are indeed armed, and your weapon is clearly visible to all and sundry.

    As you enjoy your nicotine fix and the lovely afternoon, you notice a "full-dress" police car roll past the store. It's moving rather fast, although there are no lights or sirens involved - your immediate thought is "Hmmm... musta got a call". It disappears around the corner of the building. A few seconds later, a "low-profile" cop car comes up the cross-street, not "code 3", but like the first, definitely moving a bit faster than "casual patrol" would suggest. "Wonder what's up?" you think. You watch as it goes by, then you turn to toss your butt in the store's can before stepping inside, only to notice that the first car you saw has pulled into the lot via the side entrance, apparently cruised around the back of the building, and is now coming up the side of the building tward you. Turn again, and there's the "sneaky" one - he's pulled a U-turn and is now coming in the other driveway of the store. And both are clearly aiming at you in a "box-in" type maneuver.

    "Officer Full-Dress" piles his ride in the middle of the store's traffic flow to your right. "Officer Low-Profile" does the same thing on your left. Uh-oh... things are looking ominous for our hero - tune in next week for the exciting conclu... oh, wait, slipped into radio cliff-hanger mode for a second there...

    "Officer Full-Dress" approaches you with hand on gun but not drawn, and opens the conversation with (in essence) "You ain't planning to shoot me, are you?"

    "Nope - no reason to bother" is your reply. Meanwhile, "Officer Low-Profile" has exited his car and is approaching in a manner that's probably best described as "I'm being sneaky, but I'm trying to look like I'm not *REALLY* being sneaky" and takes a position that's rather - Hmmm... Let's say "nervous-making" for lack of a better way to put it - and proceeds to just hover there while "Officer Full-Dress" handles the contact.

    Long and short of it, "Our Boys In Blue" (never mind that it's actually Khaki - you get the idea, right?) want to do the typical "Lemme see your ID, are you a crook, why do you have a gun?" cop routine, claiming that they've gotten a 911 call about a man with a gun.

    Ignoring the whole "These guys could shoot/arrest/severely inconvenience me" concept, is cooperation *LEGALLY* required in such a situation?

    My own thought on the topic is that they ought to be talking to the caller about misuse of 911, giving a false report, or something along those lines, not pestering the guy standing there having a smoke and doing exactly nothing wrong. If it were a case of "There's a guy shooting up the store!" (or the school...) I'd have to agree that it's pretty clear cut - "Drop yer donuts and roll!" but "There's a guy with a gun in front of the store" should, IMO, result in a 911 conversation similar to "What's he doing?" "He's standing there smoking a cigarette." "That's perfectly legal, have a nice day." "But he's got a gun!" "Is he shooting anybody or anything?" "No, but he's got a gun!" "So? That's perfectly legal."

    What says the forum?

    Oh, you missed next week's episode? Here's the quick version of how things turned out:
    "Officer Low-Profile" never spoke a word - just stood there trying (and failing) to look grim and imposing - obviously trying to play the "heavy" - a performance which was rather poor, IMO - he was too "Barney Fife"-ish (tall, kinda scrawny, sort of nervous looking - Perhaps a rookie?) to make it convincing. "Officer Full-Dress" should have been the one in that role. Our Hero decided that discretion was the better part of valor and cooperated, but clearly (I like to think, anyway) indicating that the entire contact was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars, and, in the end, went about his business. "Officer Full-Dress" seemed to be clued about the legality of open carry, and during the chit-chat that ensued while waiting for the ID/CPL verification, said that he was aware of OCDO, and actually seemed a bit embarrassed to be giving me a hard time, but since it was a 911 call and so close to the school, claimed he was obligated to at least make the contact/check ID, etc. - A concept I couldn't really figure out a way to argue with, to be honest. Hence, this post - I still can't decide if I should have (politely, of course) told them to go pound sand.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I'm waiting for the movie ... how about a readers digest version...

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by CheerfulHoplite View Post
    I still can't decide if I should have (politely, of course) told them to go pound sand.
    Simple answer, Yes IMO. I would have.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by CheerfulHoplite
    I still can't decide if I should have (politely, of course) told them to go pound sand.
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    Simple answer, Yes IMO. I would have.
    I would have given them the same answer as if they had inquired if I was married to the woman I was with, were those my children whose hands I was holding, was that my shirt or was it stolen, could they check my socks to make sure they were a matched pair or any other legal activity I was about.
    The police have no more business inquiring into legal behavior than does Aunt Gertie looking out her parlor window.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    A highly respected criminal defense attorney gave me a little free advice recently. I related politely refusing something refusable during a police encounter, and that the cop gave up his line of questioning at that point, in fact all questioning. The attorney pointed out that it was probably my refusal that convinced the cop.

    The lesson being that a polite, respectful refusal can communicate more than just the words conveyed.

    So, I wouldn't tell a cop to pound sand. But, I would say, (if there is no law compelling me to ID myself), "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. But, I do not consent to giving my ID to you, or talking to you at all."
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-01-2012 at 10:09 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I think the bigger question is whether the OPer was seized, meaning detained involuntarily.

    Based on the criteria in US vs Mendenhall (see the link below), I suspect the OPer was detained. I would need a few more details, but rather than ask a ton of questions, I'll let OPer tell us.

    And, if the OPer was detained, was it a legal detainment (I think that's the word y'all use)? I ask because so far, there is nothing in the OP that tells me it would have been a legal detainment.

    So, was this an illegal detainment?




    From US v Mendenhall:

    We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0544_ZO.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-01-2012 at 10:08 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    AGAIN! rinse and repeat-
    1.Why am i being detained?
    2.What is your RAS of a crime to make this a legal terry stop, what crime/statute are you investigating?
    3.there is no actual crime here. am i free to leave?


    Have your recorder running, know the law, never give into unlawful orders simply on color of authority.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    <snip> "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. But, I do not consent to giving my ID to you, or talking to you at all."
    I concur Citizen. Establish immediately that the detention is non consensual and you will be answering no questions whatsoever without an attorney.
    Live Free or Die!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Stevens Wa
    Posts
    26
    I concur

  10. #10
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by CheerfulHoplite View Post
    For discussion purposes:

    1) Being one of those unfortunate folks who was wooed by the advertising charms of "big tobacco", you're standing outside a 'mom-n-pop' store enjoying a very nice afternoon and having a smoke before going inside to do some shopping.
    2) You're known by name by all of the staff of said store, and because of conversations in the past, there is absolutely no question that they are completely aware that when you walk in, it's a near certainty that you've got a gun on your belt, regardless of whether it's actually visible on any given visit - Point being made with this detail is that there are exactly two chances that one of them is going to drop a dime on you as a "big-ol-scary MWAG" - "Slim" and "None". And Slim was seen leaving town earlier this morning.
    3) The store in question is literally across the street from a high school (Important detail due to the wad of worthless feel-good stupidity often called the GFSZA - Doncha just LOVE how well that one worked in preventing those little dust-ups at Columbine and VA Tech?)
    4) You do have a valid WA CPL on your person, although you're not choosing to conceal right now.
    5) You are indeed armed, and your weapon is clearly visible to all and sundry.

    As you enjoy your nicotine fix and the lovely afternoon, you notice a "full-dress" police car roll past the store. It's moving rather fast, although there are no lights or sirens involved - your immediate thought is "Hmmm... musta got a call". It disappears around the corner of the building. A few seconds later, a "low-profile" cop car comes up the cross-street, not "code 3", but like the first, definitely moving a bit faster than "casual patrol" would suggest. "Wonder what's up?" you think. You watch as it goes by, then you turn to toss your butt in the store's can before stepping inside, only to notice that the first car you saw has pulled into the lot via the side entrance, apparently cruised around the back of the building, and is now coming up the side of the building tward you. Turn again, and there's the "sneaky" one - he's pulled a U-turn and is now coming in the other driveway of the store. And both are clearly aiming at you in a "box-in" type maneuver.

    "Officer Full-Dress" piles his ride in the middle of the store's traffic flow to your right. "Officer Low-Profile" does the same thing on your left. Uh-oh... things are looking ominous for our hero - tune in next week for the exciting conclu... oh, wait, slipped into radio cliff-hanger mode for a second there...

    "Officer Full-Dress" approaches you with hand on gun but not drawn, and opens the conversation with (in essence) "You ain't planning to shoot me, are you?"

    "Nope - no reason to bother" is your reply. Meanwhile, "Officer Low-Profile" has exited his car and is approaching in a manner that's probably best described as "I'm being sneaky, but I'm trying to look like I'm not *REALLY* being sneaky" and takes a position that's rather - Hmmm... Let's say "nervous-making" for lack of a better way to put it - and proceeds to just hover there while "Officer Full-Dress" handles the contact.

    Long and short of it, "Our Boys In Blue" (never mind that it's actually Khaki - you get the idea, right?) want to do the typical "Lemme see your ID, are you a crook, why do you have a gun?" cop routine, claiming that they've gotten a 911 call about a man with a gun.

    Ignoring the whole "These guys could shoot/arrest/severely inconvenience me" concept, is cooperation *LEGALLY* required in such a situation?

    My own thought on the topic is that they ought to be talking to the caller about misuse of 911, giving a false report, or something along those lines, not pestering the guy standing there having a smoke and doing exactly nothing wrong. If it were a case of "There's a guy shooting up the store!" (or the school...) I'd have to agree that it's pretty clear cut - "Drop yer donuts and roll!" but "There's a guy with a gun in front of the store" should, IMO, result in a 911 conversation similar to "What's he doing?" "He's standing there smoking a cigarette." "That's perfectly legal, have a nice day." "But he's got a gun!" "Is he shooting anybody or anything?" "No, but he's got a gun!" "So? That's perfectly legal."

    What says the forum?

    Oh, you missed next week's episode? Here's the quick version of how things turned out:
    "Officer Low-Profile" never spoke a word - just stood there trying (and failing) to look grim and imposing - obviously trying to play the "heavy" - a performance which was rather poor, IMO - he was too "Barney Fife"-ish (tall, kinda scrawny, sort of nervous looking - Perhaps a rookie?) to make it convincing. "Officer Full-Dress" should have been the one in that role. Our Hero decided that discretion was the better part of valor and cooperated, but clearly (I like to think, anyway) indicating that the entire contact was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars, and, in the end, went about his business. "Officer Full-Dress" seemed to be clued about the legality of open carry, and during the chit-chat that ensued while waiting for the ID/CPL verification, said that he was aware of OCDO, and actually seemed a bit embarrassed to be giving me a hard time, but since it was a 911 call and so close to the school, claimed he was obligated to at least make the contact/check ID, etc. - A concept I couldn't really figure out a way to argue with, to be honest. Hence, this post - I still can't decide if I should have (politely, of course) told them to go pound sand.
    You have trained another officer, and his partner on how to handle an open carrier. It never ceases to amaze me on how many people come here to post after the fact within their first 30 posts and ask how to handle something they would have had an answer to, had they done a littel research prior to doing something they are not sure about. I spent alot of time lurking on this forum and reading up before I attempted to openly carry a firearm. Although not ever having had a negative encounter, I think I was pretty informed on how to handle it so as not to go against the grain on what so many here before me had done to get us to this point. Hopefully you will now do your homework so you can be more prepared for your next encounter.
    Last edited by amzbrady; 04-02-2012 at 12:55 AM.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Being inside the 1000' froma school zone, gave teh officer the PC to demand your CPL., you were performing an act that requires a CPL and allows the LEO to demand it, I would say that if you were walking on the side walk beside a school a school official might even be justified in asking for your CPL iaw the RCW

  12. #12
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    amzbrady
    you pointed this part out in red,
    he was obligated to at least make the contact/check ID,

    Here is where you are wrong-
    The law says he is obligated to LOOK, absent RAS of a crime the law says (terry VS ohio) he cannot legally demand anything more. he can start a conversation with you, however it is up to you as to how far this concensual search goes. and make no mistake it is a search. he is only stopping to talk to you to look for some crime.

    Yet again i cannot emphasis the point further-
    .LEOs are public servant providing a government service. if you are not in need of their service DO NOT TALK TO THEM ANY MORE THAN NECCISARRY.

    Unless the officer pushes the issue and wants to risk violating terry and RCW 9a.80.010 by illegally detaining and demanding ID the conversation should last all of 2 sentences-

    .Why am i being detained officer?
    .As there is no RAS of a crime here i am assuming i am free to go, have a nice day.

    If he points our your OC after you ask why your being detained your answer could be something like-
    "I'm certain your aware that the washington state constitution under section 1 article 24 protects the lawful right to peacably opencarry(upheld by the state appellet court div 2 in the case of casada VS state 2007)"
    as such there is no crime here and i would like to be on my way."

    Go watch a few of the youtube videos from our fellowOCs to see how the banter goes when they try to coercce you to show id when they know they have no legal right to.

    i particularly like this one-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMdniHWkI
    Last edited by Schlepnier; 04-02-2012 at 04:20 AM.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Federal law says that it is a crime to carry a firearm within 1000' of school premises, period. THEN it goes on to list several exceptions. Since the law is written that way, carrying a firearm within 1000' of school premises IS by itself reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed, until it can be shown that the person carrying the firearm falls under one of the exceptions.

    This is completely different than say carrying a concealed pistol where the RCW says it is only illegal to conceal a pistol without a license. In that case, the officer would have to have RAS to not only believe the person had a concealed pistol, but also specific RAS to believe that person did not have a CPL - such as if the officer recognized the person as being convicted of a crime that made them ineligible for the CPL.
    Since the OP talked about the school across the street,
    then you brought up the 1000 ft Federal GFSZ, and carry on with RAS or PC for a CPL check,
    You have Confused what Crimes a local LEO can investigate,
    and what a Federal LEO would be needed to investigate.
    Washington state does NOT have a requirement to be AWAY from a school!
    Just cant be on school grounds, unless dropping off or picking up a student!



    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Being inside the 1000' froma school zone, gave teh officer the PC to demand your CPL., you were performing an act that requires a CPL and allows the LEO to demand it, I would say that if you were walking on the side walk beside a school a school official might even be justified in asking for your CPL iaw the RCW
    They CAN ask, just like any citizen can ask...
    They would have NO authority or justification to do Anything!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    "I am going to detain you while we call for the Federal Marshall or other Federal LEO to come here and settle this business of you carrying this gun within 1000' of that school there across the street."

    This is sort of the situation for a long time on the Tulalip Reservation. Tribal Officers would stop non Indians and detain them while waiting for a County Sheriff's Deputy. Since Deputies weren't always available the Tribal Officers had to release the "detainee" before it turned into an unlawful "arrest" due to the time. I'll bet it would take far longer than the 20-30 minutes that's considered "reasonable" for a detainment. Now they're just cross commissioned so they have the same arrest powers as the County Deputies.

    As for the party that was "contacted" why not just flash the CPL and resolve the legitimate question in a minimal amount of time?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Huh!!!

    Respectfully,,, your arguement, that YOU or a Local or State LEO Now have the Authority to Enforce Federal LAW...
    Is a Statist ABSURDITY!!!

    You would be up a SHJT Loaded creek if you tried to Detain Me near a school of your choice!
    I doubt that a Washington Court would support your use of 9A.16.020 to try to hinder or restrain my free movement.
    You may call your favorite Jack Booted Thug to try to Enforce Federal LAW for you, but I bet they wont come.

    Remember,,, we are talking about a guy smoking a cig, not breaking the law!
    Were talking about law abiding citizens going about their daily business, with a Legal gun on their hip.

    I do NOT believe that simply carrying a gun, by itself, in the GFSZ provides RAS of a crime, same as driving a car!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    amzbrady
    you pointed this part out in red,



    Here is where you are wrong-
    The law says he is obligated to LOOK, absent RAS of a crime the law says (terry VS ohio) he cannot legally demand anything more. he can start a conversation with you, however it is up to you as to how far this concensual search goes. and make no mistake it is a search. he is only stopping to talk to you to look for some crime.

    Yet again i cannot emphasis the point further-
    .LEOs are public servant providing a government service. if you are not in need of their service DO NOT TALK TO THEM ANY MORE THAN NECCISARRY.

    Unless the officer pushes the issue and wants to risk violating terry and RCW 9a.80.010 by illegally detaining and demanding ID the conversation should last all of 2 sentences-

    .Why am i being detained officer?
    .As there is no RAS of a crime here i am assuming i am free to go, have a nice day.

    If he points our your OC after you ask why your being detained your answer could be something like-
    "I'm certain your aware that the washington state constitution under section 1 article 24 protects the lawful right to peacably opencarry(upheld by the state appellet court div 2 in the case of casada VS state 2007)"
    as such there is no crime here and i would like to be on my way."

    Go watch a few of the youtube videos from our fellowOCs to see how the banter goes when they try to coercce you to show id when they know they have no legal right to.

    i particularly like this one-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMdniHWkI
    No, I pointed out this part in red..."claimed he was obligated to at least make the contact/check ID" that the OP posted. I am wondering why he is obligated, and wondering why the OP obliged?
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670
    defender...carrying a gun might not meet those requirements, but here in NC they shut down the college town for someone carrying a bumbershoot that was seen by someone watching the city's surveillance cameras. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10387437/

    would hate to see what the NC college town police would do if someone called after seeing a real life gun!!

    wabbit
    Last edited by ncwabbit; 04-02-2012 at 09:43 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well wabbit.

    glad you are off topic,
    missing the point,
    and talking about how Other states do stuff.

    so I dont even need to reply...
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  19. #19
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    No, I pointed out this part in red..."claimed he was obligated to at least make the contact/check ID" that the OP posted. I am wondering why he is obligated, and wondering why the OP obliged?
    sorry about that i was under the impression you were the one arguing that point.

    As for the party that was "contacted" why not just flash the CPL and resolve the legitimate question in a minimal amount of time?
    A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).

    Dont feed the bears, it lets them think that they can get away with stuff thats illegal, and it makes it harder for the next guy who actually will stand by the law.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    I live within a FGFZ and as such have already decided for myself that I would not provide any more information than if I was outside the FGFZ, basically none. My analysis concurs with Defender, there is no WA state law making it illegal to be within 1000' of a school, only that of being on school property (with exceptions). Therefore the local and state officers, IMO, have no grounds to detain me other than to hold me for a federal officer under suspicion of a federal crime. While I may not like it, I would wait a reasonable amount of time. If reasonable became unreasonable duration, I would go down the lines of informing the officer that due to the detention duration I am considering myself under arrest and would like the opportunity to call a lawyer immediately and will answer no questions without one present.

    On a side note, there is a park and popular walking trail which go immediately in front of the school. I walk the trail and go to the park fairly often, even while school is in progress or just being released (long trail of parents in cars waiting for kids), I have never had an interaction with anyone. I had a local PD do a drive by once, but I can't even be certain it was because of me or just a normal patrol.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Just curious.... walking in front of the school on a sidewalk open carrying and a local LEO stops you and asks to see your CPL because you are in the Federal Gun Free School Zone. You tell him to pack sand, get a FED, I am not breaking any RCW. So he says, sure, no problem. 10 minutes later a Federal marshal or FBI agent shows up (entirely possible in Seattle). Now what?

    Since you knew that you had to be licensed in order to carry the gun on the public sidewalk inside the 1000' Federal school zone, and since the local LEO demanded to see the required CPL, would you be in violation of RCW 9.41.050 for not displaying the CPL to a law enforcement officer upon demand?

    Two separate questions.
    I don't feel that I am in violation of RCW 9.41.050 due to the wording.
    Quote Originally Posted by RCW 9.41.050(1)(b)
    Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license
    I am not required to have a CPL by this section (9.41), therefore I don't believe I am required to provide that to a state or local law officer on demand.


    When a federal enforcement officer shows up I would provide them a CPL if requested as the federal law requires it as an exception.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Even though the Federal law does not require you to be in possession of your CPL? The exception in Federal law only specifies that you must be licensed by the state, but does not require possession of said license.
    Since I am relying on an exception to a crime, I am burdened with showing that exception applies to me. While I may not be required to show and thus make them track it down themselves, I feel it better to relieve myself of the burden by showing it. While it may be a good test case, I am not financially able to support a case if one was to arise. If I had the money to run the test case, I would consider sterile carry down the walking trail as the way the law is written it does not seem to require the license be present. The only reason why I don't sterile carry at the park and trail now it just because the FGFZ and the possibilities of having a federal respond.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So, then, I must ask.... why not just show the CPL to the local cop in the first place and save yourself the wait for the FED to show up or the wait for the "reasonable amount of time" to expire? The Federal officer has no more authority to demand that you show him/her the CPL (because it is not required to be in your possession) than the local cop does....is your decision based solely upon the principal that the local cop cannot write you a citation for violating the Federal law, but the FED can; or is it based on not displaying to LEO a document that you are not required to be in possession of? I don't know, to me it just kind of seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face....I'm not going to show you (meaning the local LEO) my CPL because you can't write me a ticket for not showing it, but instead I am willing to stand here and wait for 20 minutes to see if you can summon another LEO who can write me a ticket if I don't show them my CPL.

    Please don't get me wrong.... I always have and will continue to believe that a local LEO who would demand to see a CPL only because you were carrying a gun in the Federal GFSZ would only be doing so because they were being a power hungry a$$hat and nothing else.
    A local LEO does not have the authority to enforce the law they are requesting the CPL for. While a Fed Leo is investigating the criminal violation of the FGFZ, which I am technically violating until an exception applies to me.

    I know it may sound weird but giving my CPL to the local LEO has no bearing on my alleged violation of a Fed statue. He can choose to accept it, ignore it or call federal anyways. The only possible gain I get out of it would be less time waiting for a Fed LEO to show up. At the same time, I would be telling the local LEO its OK to stop, detain and ask law abiding citizens in FGFZ for CPLs while also waving my rights and conversing with someone that likely does not have my best interest in mind.

    I am more concerned about giving the local LEO the precedence that its OK to contact someone regarding something they have no authority over than I am trying to spit in there face.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    While I completely understand your reasons for not showing your CPL to the local officer, have you considered this....showing your CPL to the local LEO removes the entire basis of his authority to detain you until a Federal LEO arrives. Would you not be solidifying any claim you would have against the local LEO for unlawful detainment by showing your CPL to them and removing their RAS to detain you further?

    It seems to me that a local LEO does have the legal authority to detain you inside a Federal GFSZ until it can be ascertained that you fall under an exception or until a FED arrives to issue the citation or until a reasonable time passes and a FED does not show up (and at least you and I seem to agree on that). By proving you fall under an exception you immediately remove that authority to detain you for any length of time.

    This is just me, it would just seem like by not showing your CPL to the local officer and waiting for the FED to show, you are calling the Leo's bluff already KNOWING that he has 4 aces and a joker in his hand and while he may be detaining you for no other reason than to be a dick...he does have the legal authority to keep being a dick until you take that authority away by showing you are under the exception to the law.
    Your right, I too believe he has the authority to detain me until a Fed LEO shows up, if he believes I am violating a Fed statue. However, he does not have the authority to determine if I meet exceptions to the federal statue. I think we are venturing into Good Cop vs Dick Cop senerio's here. Unfortunately, I have to assume the cop is a dick. If I show it to him and he lets me go (good cop), did he technically do the right thing? Did I actually remove the basis for his detention?

    I don't think an unlawful detainment case would hold up if he held me after showing him my CPL (dick cop), just for the previous mentioned reason (he can't legally determine if I am except from a federal statue). He would likely stand his ground that he was waiting for a Fed LEO to come clear it up (dick cop).

    I may mention to the local LEO that I am a CPL holder, if I am feeling jolly, but its not his job to determine if I am violating the federal statue. Like I said before, the only thing gained here is the possibility of a quicker release while setting a bad precedence for the local LEO.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Being inside the 1000' froma school zone, gave teh officer the PC to demand your CPL., you were performing an act that requires a CPL and allows the LEO to demand it, I would say that if you were walking on the side walk beside a school a school official might even be justified in asking for your CPL iaw the RCW
    I would enjoy seeing a cite to what statue you think gives authority to a local or state LEO (even further a Joe Citizen) to demand a CPL for a federal statue.

    I walk in front of a school all fairly often, no problems.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 04-02-2012 at 03:48 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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