Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Federal team takes aim at crimes committed with guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Federal team takes aim at crimes committed with guns

    I can see Seattle claiming O/C is brandishing and level Federal charges to initiate some form of "gun control"

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...dit25guns.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    No doubt about it.
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    So what RCW or Federal Code covers "brandishing"? I have not found any RCW that makes the mere carrying of a fire-arm illegal for the general public, hunting or some other activity not withstanding, since I don't happen to carry a firearm for anything except self-defense. Washington doesn't have printing, brandishing or most other verbs relating to this.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by redboneshadow View Post
    I can see Seattle claiming O/C is brandishing and level Federal charges to initiate some form of "gun control"

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...dit25guns.html
    Your comment in nonsensical. You offer no cite that there is a Federal brandishing charge. Can you do that?
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    So what RCW or Federal Code covers "brandishing"? I have not found any RCW that makes the mere carrying of a fire-arm illegal for the general public, hunting or some other activity not withstanding, since I don't happen to carry a firearm for anything except self-defense. Washington doesn't have printing, brandishing or most other verbs relating to this.
    Not disagreeing with your post just adding my own viewpoint. Self defense is the last reason I OC, (although an important one). I OC because it is my right and I can, it also is an expression of that right to others raising awareness of that right.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Your comment in nonsensical. You offer no cite that there is a Federal brandishing charge. Can you do that?
    Probably not. Even attorneys with an anti-gun bias have admitted in court that a holstered firearm alone is not reason for one to be alarmed (from comments in the Casad case). It isn't the fact that one is carrying a firearm in the open that constitutes any crime, it's what they do with it that can be the problem.
    "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?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Probably not. Even attorneys with an anti-gun bias have admitted in court that a holstered firearm alone is not reason for one to be alarmed (from comments in the Casad case). It isn't the fact that one is carrying a firearm in the open that constitutes any crime, it's what they do with it that can be the problem.
    I have seen this and several other references to State v. Casad, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1747 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2007), that court holding, “It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.”

    I caution all of you that, while Casad has some sexy language in it, it is an unreported case and cannot be used as precedent. It is, in fact, a violation of Washington Courts General Rule 10.4(a) that states, "A party may not cite as authority unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports." Casad is not reported there. State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 124, 876 P.2d 939 (1994) is the best choice to reference for the proposition that the mere display of a weapon does not rise to the level of display "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" envisioned by RCW 9.41.270(1). Although Spencer was found to have violated 9.41.270(1) (referred to as "brandishing" by that court), the court nevertheless laid out the elements required to impose criminal culpability on a defendant under 9.41.270.
    Last edited by rapgood; 06-27-2012 at 09:15 PM.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I have seen this and several other references to State v. Casad, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1747 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2007), that court holding, It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.

    I caution all of you that, while Casad has some sexy language in it, it is an unreported case and cannot be used as precedent. It is, in fact, a violation of Washington Courts General Rule 10.4(a) that states, "A party may not cite as authority unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports." Casad is not reported there. State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 124, 876 P.2d 939 (1994) is the best choice to reference for the proposition that the mere display of a weapon does not rise to the level of display "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" envisioned by RCW 9.41.270(1). Although Spencer was found to have violated 9.41.270(1) (referred to as "brandishing" by that court), the court nevertheless laid out the elements required to impose criminal culpability on a defendant under 9.41.270.
    You are correct in that Casad can't be cited in Court action but I referred to it as the statement shows that even among those against OC, there is no valid cause for alarm nor does it make it unlawful.

    I found it heartening that within the proceedings of Casad, an admittedly anti OC lawyer made this statement.
    "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?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    If I remember correctly Lammo mentioned away it can be mentioned without being mentioned? I can't remember the details....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    So what RCW or Federal Code covers "brandishing"? I have not found any RCW that makes the mere carrying of a fire-arm illegal for the general public, hunting or some other activity not withstanding, since I don't happen to carry a firearm for anything except self-defense. Washington doesn't have printing, brandishing or most other verbs relating to this.
    I will agree that even under RCW 9.41.270 Brandishing is not speficically mentioned as a violation.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

    However, as brandishing is very similar to exhibit(ing) and exhibit(ing) which includes in its definition display(ing). Then it is possible that if you specifically make some effort to draw attention to the firearm you are carrying or draw it from its holster without need to defend yourself or others or to otherwise prevent a crime, that a LEO could cite you as in violation of .270.

    RCW 9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
    (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.

    (2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

    (b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

    (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

    (d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

    (e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments
    Knowing that there are those who will argue with me on this. Let me explain how I come to this conclusion. If you go to: http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp
    And type the following into the: ___ Search the Legislature's Website:
    "Brandishing a firearm"
    Then have it search. It only came up wih one result for me and that was RCW 9.41.270
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; 07-01-2012 at 01:00 PM. Reason: included missed word
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

Posting Permissions

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