slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
I am aware. Thanks for making sure though.
-
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.
Even the AG office has it wrong...
- Thread starter slapmonkay
- Start date
I am aware. Thanks for making sure though.
Lammo
Regular Member
Under RAP (Rules of Appeallate Procedure) 12.3(d), the court can decide that an opinion has no value as precedent and decide not to publish it. This keeps us from having thousands of published opinions that make "routine" decisions. The specific criteria to be used are:
In determining whether the opinion will be published in the Washington Appellate Reports, the panel will use at least the following criteria: (1) Whether the decision determines an unsettled or new question of law or constitutional principle; (2) Whether the decision modifies, clarifies or reverses an established principle of law; (3) Whether a decision is of general public interest or importance; or (4) Whether a case is in conflict with a prior opinion of the Court of Appeals. (link: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=app&set=RAP&ruleid=apprap12.3)
RAP 14.1 prohibits citation to unpublised opinions. (link: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=GR&ruleid=gagr14.1)
Under these criteria, Casad should have been published as, to my tiny little mind, the case clearly clarifies an established principle of law and addresses a matter of general public interest. Personally, I use language from unpublished opinions all the time, I just don't cite the cases I take the language from. YMMV.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
It seems several are reading more into this then what is actually stated, the Attorney Generals Office does not have an official position on open carry of guns, for those who differ then please show me where they do have an official position?
Safe to state that Washington is not an open carry state, sure as what would be the repercussions to say it is or is not?
RCW 9.41.270 addresses open carry of weapons, yes not as well as we would hope but it does address it.
The AG Office position from what I have read and been told by the AG Office they do not give legal advice to the general public as represent the government and do accept opinions when requested by Government Officials or Elected Officials.
As we know our laws are based on what is prohibited and since there is no law on open carry then it is legal.
Seems to me they are having fun with you at your expense as I said before they are not in the business of given a citizen legal advice.
I am in the process of contacting both the McKenna and Inslee campaigns to get firm, specific written statements about their intent to protect or hurt state preemption and Open Carry as governor.
So far with the McKenna campaign I've tried contacting Hannah, one of his senior policy advisers that I was referred to but she is slow to get back to me. I even followed up a reminder email with a link to the picture in this thread. Hopefully they respond with a firm and specific written statement before ballots go out soon.
With the Inslee campaign I've been in contact with a guy named "Richard" that I already spoke to over the phone. He told me that Inslee supports "current law" but I am not sure this means he would protect that from alteration. I asked him for a firm, specific commitment in writing to protect current law as it stands now and they told me they'd send it to me to put up here "in a few days." That was about 2 weeks ago.
I am still hounding these two and won't give up easily on it.
I also plan on pinging as many state legislators as I can find.
So far with the McKenna campaign I've tried contacting Hannah, one of his senior policy advisers that I was referred to but she is slow to get back to me. I even followed up a reminder email with a link to the picture in this thread. Hopefully they respond with a firm and specific written statement before ballots go out soon.
With the Inslee campaign I've been in contact with a guy named "Richard" that I already spoke to over the phone. He told me that Inslee supports "current law" but I am not sure this means he would protect that from alteration. I asked him for a firm, specific commitment in writing to protect current law as it stands now and they told me they'd send it to me to put up here "in a few days." That was about 2 weeks ago.
I am still hounding these two and won't give up easily on it.
I also plan on pinging as many state legislators as I can find.
rapgood
Regular Member
Yes, State v. Maciolek is controlling with respect to the scope of the "warrants alarm" clause in .270 (Spencer doesn't get as specific about what "does" or "does not" constitute warranting alarm).
Although Casad is sexy, it simply is not precedent law. If you (or your attorney) attempt to rely on it, you will be violating Washington Court Rules, General Rule 14.1(a) and not only will it be summarily ignored by the court, but the party citing to it may be sanctioned (fined). Please do not rely on it.
GR 14.1(a) reads: "Washington Court of Appeals. A party may not cite as an authority an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports." If an unpublished case cannot be cited in appellate court, then it cannot be cited in Superior Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.
Q: Why are some cases published and others not?
A: In addition to the "official reasons" referenced above by Lammo, frequently, courts will seek to get a particular resolution for a particular case (usually very fact specific) and don't want that holding to become precedent.
Q: Why do they do that?
A: Because.
But, to confuse matters even more, if a case is in federal court (not Washington state court where virtually all .270 cases are prosecuted), one can cite to unpublished opinions.
Go read Maciolek.
Actually, there are many more reported (published) cases about charges for alleged violations of .270; some where the defendant was convicted and some not.
Spencer is inapposite to open carry. The Spencer court, while making favorable comments about .270, was about display of long guns. There is no law regarding whether a long gun is or is not displayed when carried. The most significant value of the holding in Spencer is that the term "warrants alarm" implicates the reasonable person standard. As such, although some people may find the mere open display of a gun shocking, a "reasonable person" would not be "alarmed" for the purposes of .270. Presumably because the mere open display of a gun is fully protected by 2Am and Art. I, section 24 of the WA Constitution.
No, it cannot set a precedent. It is unpublished, and therefore not precedent in any court. However, it may be cited to as persuasive authority in other courts if those other courts rules allow it. But, not in Washington (although GR 14.1(b) allows us to cite to unpublished opinions from other jurisdictions, we can't cite to our own -- go figure).
A "published" or "reported" case (both mean the same, but are used in different contexts) is one that the court intends to be precedent and can be cited as controlling law. An "unpublished" case cannot be used as controlling law.
Last edited:
rapgood
Regular Member
Me too. As do most lawyers (but, we don't always admit it
).
Lammo
Regular Member
Me too. As do most lawyers (but, we don't always admit it
Copy & paste up against a deadline is often my best friend.
Tawnos
Regular Member
Copy & paste up against a deadline is often my best friend.
And here I thought that was the domain of computer engineers. At my uni, the letters for computer engineering were CPE, and we often referred to ourselves as cut and paste engineers.
rapgood
Regular Member
Before changing careers to law, I was a computer engineer for 20+ years. Wrote performance management tools for operating systems. That's probably where I learned it!
Difdi
Regular Member
Obviously, the court didn't publish it because they considered their ruling to be so entirely obvious, that it was simply a matter of common sense.
I can only wish that police, prosecutors and lower court judges found it to be so utterly obvious a conclusion.
amzbrady
Regular Member
Why?
davidmcbeth
Banned
Unpublished does not mean they have no value and they can indeed be properly cited in pleadings/arguments.
And they can be binding.
The viewpoint regarding unpublished opinions has changed ... folks, do some research and discuss..
And they can be binding.
The viewpoint regarding unpublished opinions has changed ... folks, do some research and discuss..
Last edited:
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Please cite the rule of the court that say this... it was discussed in post #25
slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
Why what?
Schlepnier
Regular Member
To my limited understanding thats not how our federal court systems work. unless or until it is appealed/challenged/overturned by another federal circuit it is the law. if a conflict arises between the courts rulings it eventually makes its way to the US supreme court for a fiinal ruling.
Terry V ohio is so well known because it made it all the way to SCOTUS however many other rulings we reference here and carry the force of law are in fact federal circuit cases that have never been challenged or appealed
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Last edited:
amlevin
Regular Member
Copy & paste up against a deadline is often my best friend.
And not just for Lawyers. My philosophy was always "if someone else typed what I'd like to say, why should I have to type it again"?
amlevin
Regular Member
Perhaps he just wants a battle of wits with unarmed persons.
rapgood
Regular Member
Bzzzzt! Wrong answer in Washington (and most states). Although, they can be cited in federal court, but lack precedent value.
But, thanks for playing, and we have some nice parting gifts for you.
Last edited:
rapgood
Regular Member
EMN has conflated federal court hierarchy with state court hierarchy.
Please read:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational.../CourtStructure/StructureOfFederalCourts.aspx
http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational...erstandingFederalAndStateCourtsCaseStudy.aspx