Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: OC / CC unlawful display questions

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    116

    OC / CC unlawful display questions

    If I am OCing, and put on a long shirt that covers my gun a little bit, but the barrel sticks out, is this brandishing? Does the gun have to be fully visible?

    What if I'm CCing and theres some printing, or a reach up / bend down, and it becomes visible? Could I be charged? I do have my CPL.

    Or if I'm wearing a coat, or flannel, while open carrying, and it covers the gun from the sides, but not the front.

    Sorry about quick questions, running late for school and wanted to ask before I forgot to! Thanks!

  2. #2
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    No.

    This is an OC state. You need a CPL to CC and nothing to OC.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  3. #3
    Regular Member TheGunMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee, WA
    Posts
    83

    Said Perfectly

    Quote Originally Posted by decklin View Post
    No.

    This is an OC state. You need a CPL to CC and nothing to OC.
    Said perfectly

  4. #4
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by theaero View Post
    If I am OCing, and put on a long shirt that covers my gun a little bit, but the barrel sticks out, is this brandishing? Does the gun have to be fully visible?
    Just tuck the shirt around the holster. You don't have to tuck it in to your pants, but just put your shirt between the gun and your body.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398
    You miss a thread?





    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  6. #6
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I decided to put on my holster and use some pictures just to make sure we're talking about the same thing


    Quote Originally Posted by theaero View Post
    If I am OCing, and put on a long shirt that covers my gun a little bit, but the barrel sticks out, is this brandishing? Does the gun have to be fully visible?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2361.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	119.6 KB 
ID:	9398

    Like this?

    This is legal as long as you have a concealed pistol license or are qualified to a 9.41.060 exception to restrictions on carrying firearms

    What if I'm CCing and theres some printing, or a reach up / bend down, and it becomes visible? Could I be charged? I do have my CPL
    The thread that OrangeIsTrouble posted talks about that very question, no it is no illegal for your gun to print like it is in Texas. if your gun becomes visible accidentily I don't think that's illegal either.

    Or if I'm wearing a coat, or flannel, while open carrying, and it covers the gun from the sides, but not the front.
    like this?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2362.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	100.4 KB 
ID:	9399

    Again not illegal on its face, but it may be if you have the front of your coat open or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone. but carrying in this manner is legal on its face too.

    Sorry about quick questions, running late for school and wanted to ask before I forgot to! Thanks!
    you're welcome, have a great day at school, just don't carry there.... unless your school allows it.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  7. #7
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    like this?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2362.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	100.4 KB 
ID:	9399

    Again not illegal on its face, but it may be if you have the front of your coat open or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone. but carrying in this manner is legal on its face too.
    No! No! No! It is not an unlawful display simply because the OP's "coat is open." And, if the OP "opens his coat to show someone," it still doesn't rise to unlawful conduct by simply opening his coat. To be liable under RCW 9.41.270(1) for opening his coat, the OP must open his coat "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." The mere display of the weapon is not illegal unless it is accompanied by some other act "that poses a threat to another person."

    It is precisely this type of conduct (mere display) that LEOs improperly allege is violative of the unlawful display statute. You repeating wrongful interpretations of the statute only makes it more difficult to educate others about the proper interpretation of the statute.

    Please do not answer legal questions about which you do not possess a complete understanding.
    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 EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post


    No! No! No! It is not an unlawful display simply because the OP's "coat is open." And, if the OP "opens his coat to show someone," it still doesn't rise to unlawful conduct by simply opening his coat. To be liable under RCW 9.41.270(1) for opening his coat, the OP must open his coat "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." The mere display of the weapon is not illegal unless it is accompanied by some other act "that poses a threat to another person."

    It is precisely this type of conduct (mere display) that LEOs improperly allege is violative of the unlawful display statute. You repeating wrongful interpretations of the statute only makes it more difficult to educate others about the proper interpretation of the statute.

    Please do not answer legal questions about which you do not possess a complete understanding.
    I never said it was unlawful to carry with one's coat open, I was saying opening a coat to intimidate someone was illegal.

    Your response is based on a completely false premise, I never stated mere display is a problem legally. I said to be cautious about displaying a gun in that manner, if you're arguing with someone and decide to open your coat that may very get you into trouble. but nowhere in that comment did I state mere carry or display was illegal in any way.

    And while we're talking about .270, yes one should always err on the side of caution about .270 considering some recent incidents in Vancouver. if you have a crooked enough DA anything is a violation of .270.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I never said it was unlawful to carry with one's coat open, I was saying opening a coat to intimidate someone was illegal.
    Sigh. What you said was "or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone" but now you protest that what you said was "opening your coat to intimidate someone." The use of the word "and" connotes that there were two things occurring: 1) opening of a coat; and 2) someone was intimidated thereby. The use of the word "to" connotes that there is only one act (open a coat) and that that opening was performed with the intent to intimidate (whether it succeeded in intimidation or not).

    It is possible that someone could open a coat, thereby showing a gun which might incidentally intimidate someone, but does not give rise to the legal result that the intent was to intimidate (whether the viewer was intimidated or not).

    Using "and" would make the person merely displaying the weapon culpable because the result (intimidation) refers to the reaction by the viewer. "To," on the other hand, demands that a proof of intent must be established before legal culpability attaches because it refers to the mindset of the exhibitor, regardless of the reaction by the person to whom it was displayed.
    Last edited by rapgood; 10-16-2012 at 08:49 PM. Reason: clarify
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Sigh. What you said was "or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone" but now you protest that what you said was "opening your coat to intimidate someone." The use of the word "and" connotes that there were two things occurring: 1) opening of a coat; and 2) someone was intimidated thereby. The use of the word "to" connotes that there is only one act (open a coat) and that that opening was performed with the intent to intimidate (whether it succeeded in intimidation or not).

    It is possible that someone could open a coat, thereby showing a gun which might incidentally intimidate someone, but does not give rise to the legal result that the intent was to intimidate (whether the viewer was intimidated or not).

    Using "and" would make the person merely displaying the weapon culpable because the result refers to the reaction by the viewer. "To," on the other hand, demands that a proof of intent must be established before legal culpability attaches because it refers to the mindset of the exhibitor, regardless of the reaction by the person to whom it was displayed.
    Well I never was A+ student in grammar classes....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Sigh. What you said was "or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone" but now you protest that what you said was "opening your coat to intimidate someone." The use of the word "and" connotes that there were two things occurring: 1) opening of a coat; and 2) someone was intimidated thereby. The use of the word "to" connotes that there is only one act (open a coat) and that that opening was performed with the intent to intimidate (whether it succeeded in intimidation or not).

    It is possible that someone could open a coat, thereby showing a gun which might incidentally intimidate someone, but does not give rise to the legal result that the intent was to intimidate (whether the viewer was intimidated or not).

    Using "and" would make the person merely displaying the weapon culpable because the result (intimidation) refers to the reaction by the viewer. "To," on the other hand, demands that a proof of intent must be established before legal culpability attaches because it refers to the mindset of the exhibitor, regardless of the reaction by the person to whom it was displayed.
    Good go there Rapgood... my way is to say...You are in WA...look at RCW 9.41.270...and read CAREfully. With great care you can understand what the legislature intended. Then, Thank God, this aint TX.
    Last edited by hermannr; 10-16-2012 at 10:13 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Well I wanna take pictures too!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752639IFV70zgE.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	93.8 KB 
ID:	9404

    I wouldn't be surprised if this was considered "concealed," and I wouldn't want to leave it up to a jury of my peers to decide.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752712BiJXNeVf.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	85.1 KB 
ID:	9405

    This is the simple solution.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    Well I wanna take pictures too!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752639IFV70zgE.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	93.8 KB 
ID:	9404

    I wouldn't be surprised if this was considered "concealed," and I wouldn't want to leave it up to a jury of my peers to decide.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752712BiJXNeVf.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	85.1 KB 
ID:	9405

    This is the simple solution.
    The way I understand the difference between Concealed and Open Carried is that if enough of the firearm is exposed so that a reasonable person could discern it's a firearm, it's not "concealed" as far as the law is concerned.

    Perhaps rapgood has something to offer on this. He's the Lawyer, I'm just a "reasonable person"
    "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?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post


    No! No! No! It is not an unlawful display simply because the OP's "coat is open." And, if the OP "opens his coat to show someone," it still doesn't rise to unlawful conduct by simply opening his coat. To be liable under RCW 9.41.270(1) for opening his coat, the OP must open his coat "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." The mere display of the weapon is not illegal unless it is accompanied by some other act "that poses a threat to another person."

    It is precisely this type of conduct (mere display) that LEOs improperly allege is violative of the unlawful display statute. You repeating wrongful interpretations of the statute only makes it more difficult to educate others about the proper interpretation of the statute.

    Please do not answer legal questions about which you do not possess a complete understanding.
    Thank you Rapgood

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post

    I'm just a "reasonable person"
    When did that happen, did it hurt? LOL
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 10-17-2012 at 10:20 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The way I understand the difference between Concealed and Open Carried is that if enough of the firearm is exposed so that a reasonable person could discern it's a firearm, it's not "concealed" as far as the law is concerned.
    Cites would be most welcome. The law is silent on this and I don't know whether there are any cases that set precedent.

    I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though.

    This is somewhat extreme, but may be an accurate idea of the yardstick an officer will use, so all of these could be considered "concealed" by a LEO...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2361.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	119.6 KB 
ID:	9398 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2362.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	100.4 KB 
ID:	9399 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752639IFV70zgE.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	93.8 KB 
ID:	9404

    Play it safe. Do as Cubex suggests: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752712BiJXNeVf.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	85.1 KB 
ID:	9405

    Also, to Theaero's original question: A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).

  17. #17
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Cites would be most welcome. The law is silent on this and I don't know whether there are any cases that set precedent.

    I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though.

    This is somewhat extreme, but may be an accurate idea of the yardstick an officer will use, so all of these could be considered "concealed" by a LEO...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2361.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	119.6 KB 
ID:	9398 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2362.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	100.4 KB 
ID:	9399 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752639IFV70zgE.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	93.8 KB 
ID:	9404

    Play it safe. Do as Cubex suggests: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752712BiJXNeVf.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	85.1 KB 
ID:	9405

    Also, to Theaero's original question: A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).
    What's the reference to the yardstick?
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  18. #18
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).
    One of the few reasons (along with being able to carry loaded in a vehicle) that I am going to eventually get my CPL.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  19. #19
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The way I understand the difference between Concealed and Open Carried is that if enough of the firearm is exposed so that a reasonable person could discern it's a firearm, it's not "concealed" as far as the law is concerned.

    Perhaps rapgood has something to offer on this. He's the Lawyer, I'm just a "reasonable person"
    I suspect that it is a question that would have to be decided by juries on case-by-case bases.
    WRT to being a "reasonable person," I sure wish you and 11 of your peers had been around the last time I had to select a jury!
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Cites would be most welcome. The law is silent on this and I don't know whether there are any cases that set precedent.

    I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though.

    This is somewhat extreme, but may be an accurate idea of the yardstick an officer will use, so all of these could be considered "concealed" by a LEO...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2361.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	119.6 KB 
ID:	9398 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100_2362.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	100.4 KB 
ID:	9399 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752639IFV70zgE.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	93.8 KB 
ID:	9404

    Play it safe. Do as Cubex suggests: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oie_1752712BiJXNeVf.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	85.1 KB 
ID:	9405

    Also, to Theaero's original question: A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).
    To begin, the term "conceal" (and by extension, "concealed") is not defined in RCW 9.41.xxx. In the absence of a statutory definition, the words used are given their ordinary and usual meaning. State v. Forrester, 21 Wn. App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978); State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001)( “If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself”).

    Black's Legal Dictionary defines "conceal" as:
    Conceal. To hide, secrete, or withhold from the knowledge of others.

    Dictionary.com says:
    conĚceal    [kuhn-seel]
    verb (used with object)
    1. to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight: He concealed the gun under his coat.

    Note that neither definition contemplates "conceal" as being anything other than completely out of sight. As such, the LEO who says otherwise is either 1) completely ignorant as to the definition, 2) completely ignorant as to the reach of the law, 3) attempting to encourage you to be (perhaps overly) cautious about how you carry, or 4) intentionally misstating the law to bolster his/her narrow construction of it in order to justify illegally arresting and/or citing OCers for violations of the law. Obviously, in each of the examples above, the weapon and/or, the holster containing it are not "hidden," "secreted," "covered or kept from sight," or "withdrawn or removed from observation."

    In any event, the LEO statement "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed" is wholly without a sound legal basis and flies in the face of the plain language of the statute.
    Last edited by rapgood; 10-17-2012 at 02:07 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.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    <snip>

    I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though. <snip>
    This is what I refer to as serial misinformation. Much of it is intentional as to discourage regular citizens from carrying in the manner that they feel comfortable. It has the illusion of force behind it because it came from a 'LEO friend'.

    For cites, please see rapgood's post above.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    This is what I refer to as serial misinformation. Much of it is intentional as to discourage regular citizens from carrying in the manner that they feel comfortable. It has the illusion of force behind it because it came from a 'LEO friend'.

    For cites, please see rapgood's post above.
    Also I'm sure rapgood accepts cash, check, or credit card for his retainer when you go with the blacks's definition and get arrested and charged with unlawful CCW.

    Rap may be right in the highly technical sense, but i wouldn't want to chance his definition to a judge or jury.

    considering one arrest means time off work, school, lost grades, lost salary, time in jail, time spent going to court, If I'm lucky I may get ROR'd but that's unlikely and since I don't have 3 to 5K to bond myself out of jail I'll sit there for trial while being used as a sex toy by Trixie Bill and Bubba Sue, not to mention the 10K + that will be in rap's pocket by the time the charge *POSSIBLY* *MAY* be dismissed if you get arrested for unlawful CCW and if the Judge/Jury simply think Rapgood's voice is annoying congradulations I now have 90 days more with my fabulous cell mates to wonder what went wrong. I think common sense will overrule and say get a CPL before doing that.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 10-17-2012 at 03:18 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    I and I am sure many others never have to face this scenario by carrying a CPL, it eliminates any vagueness or grey area where someone might try to find.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  24. #24
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Also I'm sure rapgood accepts cash, check, or credit card for his retainer when you go with the blacks's definition and get arrested and charged with unlawful CCW.

    Rap may be right in the highly technical sense, but i wouldn't want to chance his definition to a judge or jury.

    considering one arrest means time off work, school, lost grades, lost salary, time in jail, time spent going to court, If I'm lucky I may get ROR'd but that's unlikely and since I don't have 3 to 5K to bond myself out of jail I'll sit there for trial while being used as a sex toy by Trixie Bill and Bubba Sue, not to mention the 10K + that will be in rap's pocket by the time the charge *POSSIBLY* *MAY* be dismissed if you get arrested for unlawful CCW and if the Judge/Jury simply think Rapgood's voice is annoying congradulations I now have 90 days more with my fabulous cell mates to wonder what went wrong. I think common sense will overrule and say get a CPL before doing that.
    What the hell was that?

    Are you the guy that tries to tell the mechanic how to do his job too?

    Perhaps you should spend more time thinking and less time flexing your fingers.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Also I'm sure rapgood accepts cash, check, or credit card for his retainer when you go with the blacks's definition and get arrested and charged with unlawful CCW.

    Rap may be right in the highly technical sense, but i wouldn't want to chance his definition to a judge or jury.

    considering one arrest means time off work, school, lost grades, lost salary, time in jail, time spent going to court, If I'm lucky I may get ROR'd but that's unlikely and since I don't have 3 to 5K to bond myself out of jail I'll sit there for trial while being used as a sex toy by Trixie Bill and Bubba Sue, not to mention the 10K + that will be in rap's pocket by the time the charge *POSSIBLY* *MAY* be dismissed if you get arrested for unlawful CCW and if the Judge/Jury simply think Rapgood's voice is annoying congradulations I now have 90 days more with my fabulous cell mates to wonder what went wrong. I think common sense will overrule and say get a CPL before doing that.
    Do you admit that this serial misinformation has had a chilling affect your thoughts on carry (either CC or OC)?

    Black's definition is the accepted definition by the courts.

    I have the courage to do what is legal, it is clear that you do not.
    Live Free or Die!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •