Open carrying at the mall

LkWd_Don · Dec 9, 2012

BigDave said:
There is a man in Onalaska where he shot and killed a man with his wife coming onto his property at night which had been burglarized in the days before and is doing time in prison for it, how does that scenario work out for you and no one else?

Keyword here is DEFENSE, this is a serous failure to understand Washington State Constitution and Laws.

The only explanation I see that can apply here is that your OCDO login has been hacked and someone is posting ridiculous bull.

And even the PA in that case said had he waited for them to get int his garage or physically into a vehicle of his, he would not be where he is today.

My original statement and post in this thread, just for you and NavyLCDR to consider, is that If someone carries a weapon where they already know it is against the wishes of the property Owner, they are intentionally violating that Owners wishes. It matters not what their purpose was. As supporters of Freedom and Liberty, they have made themselves out as hypocrites at the very least, and depending on the property, maybe even criminals in that they have shown advance knowledge and complete intent to ignore the rules for their own gain.

In the case I presented, I need only be able to articulate that I felt a real fear for my life, upon seeing one or more unknown individuals entering my property for god knows what ungodly mischief, and having a mysterious bulge giving me the impression that they are armed and up to no good.

Which considering my frail physical condition would be very easy to do. Now, had they been the ones coming onto my property uninvited and even without prior knowledge of what I may or may not allow on my property, may lose more than their ability to defend themselves.

Additional Thought here.
The best defensive stance is a very strong Offense!

BigDave · Dec 9, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
In the case I presented, I need only be able to articulate that I felt a real fear for my life, upon seeing one or more unknown individuals entering my property for god knows what ungodly mischief, and having a mysterious bulge giving me the impression that they are armed and up to no good.

Which considering my frail physical condition would be very easy to do. Now, had they been the ones coming onto my property uninvited and even without prior knowledge of what I may or may not allow on my property, may lose more than their ability to defend themselves.

Additional Thought here.
The best defensive stance is a very strong Offense!

LkWd_Don said:
I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not!
Keep that in mind as you violate a private property owners stated wishes.

Articulating ones real fear for life or limb will be viewed in the context of reasonable force, not more then necessary, that a reasonable person knowing what you knew at the time would have done the same as you.
From what you have described I strongly feel you will fail.

Being frail, sickly does not give one a free pass to use force or deadly force for that matter and still must be considered reasonable and not more the necessary.

LkWd_Don · Dec 9, 2012

BigDave said:
Articulating ones real fear for life or limb will be viewed in the context of reasonable force, not more then necessary, that a reasonable person knowing what you knew at the time would have done the same as you.
From what you have described I strongly feel you will fail.

Being frail, sickly does not give one a free pass to use force or deadly force for that matter and still must be considered reasonable and not more the necessary.

That just shows that you are assuming I cannot articulate.

hermannr · Dec 9, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
Please read what I said again. I have emphasized some of it for clarity.

Then maybe you should consider that in nearly all of our laws, intent is what separates a criminal act from an accidental one. If you are already aware (Know) that a restriction of firearms exists on a certain property, then by entering that property, you are knowingly violating the Owners wishes, and even without them having to tell you that it is not allowed, are making yourself an intentional trespasser.

Based upon your statement, you do not believe that you are doing anything wrong or committing any crime if you violate a property owners rules while on his Property!

I will turn this around on you and ask that you show me where there is no possible way that any property owner can have you arrested for bringing a firearm onto restricted property.

Even if you can, it does not change that you would become a hypocrite should you attempt to feign ignorance when approached for carrying a firearm onto property where you know it is prohibited..

Yes, the onus of proof that you knew in advance, will still fall on the Owner, however at that point you have already shown to yourself and possibly to others what your lack of integrity is, that you lack the respect for others rights that you expect they would grant to you.

Since you asked that I povide something, I would direct you to many of Washington States Administrative Codes that would not give you the option, but would have you arrested for carrying concealed if caught on specific properties. That in itself implies that you are breaking laws. Admin Codes in and of themselves mean little, but most of the codes I refer to have RCW's behind them giving them their bite, as the State of Washington occupies and preempts all firearm regulations, then their own Administrative Codes restricting firearms do carry weight. Here is just one as an example. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=10-20&full=true#10-20-010

Think about something else: If you have your property marked "No Firearms Allowed", then happen to observe someone you do not know carrying a concealed firearm onto your property, would you simply say, Oh well.. he is just trying to provide himself with a practical solution in a real world situation, or would you consider taking action that may cost him his life?

First: let me say that to be a trespasser on any property that is open to the general public, you must do doing something that is, against the law if public property, or against the wishes of the property owner if private. If compitent authority for that property owner informs me personally (not internet chatter and not some sign that I may miss) that I cannot carry, and I do not leave, then I can be charged with trespass...otherwise I cannot.

Yes, even if there is a sign..how do you, or anyone else know that I can read any language....that is why you must be requested to leave, personally. Is being illiterat a crime? Let's not make it one. Read the law on trespass, what does it state? BTW: Private property (your abode) and private property that is open to the general public is NOT the same thing, not even close.

When you choose to open your property to the general public you are playing by a whole new set of rules that impact peoples rights...That is how the Americans with Disabilities Act comes into play, all the anti discrimination laws, most states even provide for carry in places of "public accomadation" If you want to know what places of public accomadation are, read the Civil Rights act or the disabilities act,,,it's in the definition section.

As for WACs..WACs cover administrative rules...and as such must be backed up by an RCW that authorizes that WAC. So, lets look at the UW, and their WAC that states you cannot carry on UW property...Question #1: Can the BoR control carry by the general public on UW property? Not when the property is open to the general public. (say the Arboritum, or the sidewalks, lawns, even the museums and libraries?) no. The LAW (RCWs) regulates the general public on public property, The UW WACs regulate the students and university employees.

Next lets look at what the LAW states in RCW 9.41.290 and .300. Is there anything in those two LAWs that states any state college or university can control any carry? Nope...so, not only is that particulat WAC not applicable to non-students and non-employees, it is not even legal...which someday, when it will be challenged in court, the university will loose, just like the universities did in Oregon and Colorado when the question of restricting carry on university property was finally brought before the courts.

WACs are ok, but they MUST have law to back them up, and for carry on public property in WA that means they must have a specific exemption to RCW 9.41.290 as provided in RCW 9.41.300 or other applicable RCW. BTW: The RCW that gives the UW BoR it's authority, DOES NOT provide a firearms exemption so their WAC that restricts carry in no better that the Seattle rule to prohibit carry in their parks...they just do not have the authority, Notwithstanding that they have assumed that authority, WAC's are not LAW, they carry no penality except by the RCW that gives the authority for the WAC.

WA Court decissions may provide that the university can restrict carry while on the job for some employees, but not for the general public...think public transit, The WA supreme court has stated that a transit employee can be restricted from carrying while on the job, but that the public cannot be restricted from legal carry on the same transit vehicle.

hermannr · Dec 9, 2012

NavyLCDR said:
Citation, please?

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

You know that does not apply to property that is open to the general public...Right?

Metalhead47 · Dec 9, 2012

hermannr said:
First: let me say that to be a trespasser on any property that is open to the general public, you must do doing something that is, against the law if public property, or against the wishes of the property owner if private. If compitent authority for that property owner informs me personally (not internet chatter and not some sign that I may miss) that I cannot carry, and I do not leave, then I can be charged with trespass...otherwise I cannot.

Yes, even if there is a sign..how do you, or anyone else know that I can read any language....that is why you must be requested to leave, personally. Is being illiterat a crime? Let's not make it one. Read the law on trespass, what does it state? BTW: Private property (your abode) and private property that is open to the general public is NOT the same thing, not even close.

When you choose to open your property to the general public you are playing by a whole new set of rules that impact peoples rights...That is how the Americans with Disabilities Act comes into play, all the anti discrimination laws, most states even provide for carry in places of "public accomadation" If you want to know what places of public accomadation are, read the Civil Rights act or the disabilities act,,,it's in the definition section.

As for WACs..WACs cover administrative rules...and as such must be backed up by an RCW that authorizes that WAC. So, lets look at the UW, and their WAC that states you cannot carry on UW property...Question #1: Can the BoR control carry by the general public on UW property? Not when the property is open to the general public. (say the Arboritum, or the sidewalks, lawns, even the museums and libraries?) no. The LAW (RCWs) regulates the general public on public property, The UW WACs regulate the students and university employees.

Next lets look at what the LAW states in RCW 9.41.290 and .300. Is there anything in those two LAWs that states any state college or university can control any carry? Nope...so, not only is that particulat WAC not applicable to non-students and non-employees, it is not even legal...which someday, when it will be challenged in court, the university will loose, just like the universities did in Oregon and Colorado when the question of restricting carry on university property was finally brought before the courts.

WACs are ok, but they MUST have law to back them up, and for carry on public property in WA that means they must have a specific exemption to RCW 9.41.290 as provided in RCW 9.41.300 or other applicable RCW. BTW: The RCW that gives the UW BoR it's authority, DOES NOT provide a firearms exemption so their WAC that restricts carry in no better that the Seattle rule to prohibit carry in their parks...they just do not have the authority, Notwithstanding that they have assumed that authority, WAC's are not LAW, they carry no penality except by the RCW that gives the authority for the WAC.

WA Court decissions may provide that the university can restrict carry while on the job for some employees, but not for the general public...think public transit, The WA supreme court has stated that a transit employee can be restricted from carrying while on the job, but that the public cannot be restricted from legal carry on the same transit vehicle.

Said what I was thinking, only quicker & better.:dude:

Sorry, NOT a hypocrite. Sum up: Not breaking any law until I am verbally asked to leave by someone with due authority and refuse, I avoid such places as much as possible in the first place, but if I cannot avoid such place I will do what is necessary and within the law to protect myself and my family. Property open to the general public is NOT the same as private property, or a private club like Costco.

Flopsweat · Dec 9, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
Read my last post to Metalhead47 and know that if you carry on property that you already know in advance is restricted by the Property Owner, if nothing else, you make your self a complete hypocrite for not respecting the same rights that you would demand they grant you without hesitation.

Do you wish to argue that point?

Would you also wish to argue that in our system of justice, that separates most acts from being accidental to being criminal is knowing in advance and intentionally violating whatever it is that you are violating?

I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not!

Keep that in mind as you violate a private property owners stated wishes.

I read your post. It does not address my question at all. No, I do not wish to discuss some other unrelated point with you. I want you to cite the law that is being broken in the example that I presented.

BigDave · Dec 9, 2012

BigDave said:
Articulating ones real fear for life or limb will be viewed in the context of reasonable force, not more then necessary, that a reasonable person knowing what you knew at the time would have done the same as you.
From what you have described I strongly feel you will fail.

Being frail, sickly does not give one a free pass to use force or deadly force for that matter and still must be considered reasonable and not more the necessary.

LkWd_Don said:
That just shows that you are assuming I cannot articulate.

You presented your scenario, it lacks any information for a reasonable person to conclude that you acted in a reasonable manner or with necessary force.
I am not assuming you don't know how to articulate it is here in black and white.

You really need to rethink your use of force.

LkWd_Don · Dec 9, 2012

BigDave said:
You presented your scenario, it lacks any information for a reasonable person to conclude that you acted in a reasonable manner or with necessary force.
I am not assuming you don't know how to articulate it is here in black and white.

You really need to rethink your use of force.

IMHO You have failed to make your case. Guess you lack articulation skills then too huh? Or is it a case of it is, what you feel it is, therefore it is?

Sorry, NOT!

amlevin · Dec 9, 2012

Metalhead47 said:
there are times when a specific set of circumstances makes it unavoidable (usually because the wife REALLY REALLY wants to go to the mall. She tolerates my foibles, I tolerate hers.)

When that happens in my home, I merely suggest that my wife would be far happier if she went with our Daughter (who likes to shop) than to have me take her. She tends to agree, having forced me into a Mall once or twice in the past. A simple comment, repeated every 10 minutes or so, like "is this going to be a long shopping trip?" has been very effective.

My Daughter drives too, and she carries a huge OC pepper spray "dispenser". Looks more like a can of Bear Repellent.

Flopsweat · Dec 9, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
IMHO You have failed to make your case. Guess you lack articulation skills then too huh? Or is it a case of it is, what you feel it is, therefore it is?

Sorry, NOT!

You guys are ruining Hot's party. Here we were all set up for pin the tail on the donkey and now we've got too many donkeys. It's getting confusing. And you're starting to knock chairs over. Can't you take it outside? We'll call you when they serve the cake.

Trigger Dr · Dec 9, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
That just shows that you are assuming I cannot articulate.

No, It is obvious that you can articulate, but NOT in a CONVINCING MANNER

LkWd_Don · Dec 9, 2012

NavyLCDR said:
Yes, I completely understand that. Which is exactly why I quoted the post I replying to:

I think a person would find it very difficult to convince a jury that REASONABLE force against a person who entered unposted property is shooting them simply because they do not recognize them and have an unidentified bulge in their clothing. For example, what if the person slain was a UPS driver and the unidentified bulge in her clothing was the scanner for tracking the bar codes?

True example: my house was invaded in Oklahoma City. After that I had a loaded pistol within arms reach 95% of the time. One day I saw someone standing on my hot tub cover in the back yard. I grabbed the pistol and went out the back door. Does LkWd_Don really think the jury would say I was justified in shooting the power company's meter reader who had a bar code scanner in his hand? While I certainly did probably scare the crap out of the meter reader when he saw the gun at low ready, no police were called and no charges were filed.

LOL though I did not give any specifics in my example, which will leave everyone guessing, I also will not give specifics on how I might articulate my justification.

Should such a situation occur, I would not want there to be anyone saying that what I might use then being very close to what I said way back "NOW" and have it become a "Premeditated" case.

However, I can see there are many here who do not think of such things, and in not being open-minded enough to think out what might be possible, might cause their own incarceration.

BigDave · Dec 9, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
LOL though I did not give any specifics in my example, which will leave everyone guessing, I also will not give specifics on how I might articulate my justification.

Should such a situation occur, I would not want there to be anyone saying that what I might use then being very close to what I said way back "NOW" and have it become a "Premeditated" case.

However, I can see there are many here who do not think of such things, and in not being open-minded enough to think out what might be possible, might cause their own incarceration.

This was your scenario and was not articulated with any substance.

Premeditated, interesting to say this, how would one be able to determine ahead of time on how they would articulate an incident until it happened?
Knowing the laws and applying them to an incident, should it be presented with and how we responded is articulable, not premeditated.

It seems more and more you have not done your homework, if you think expressing what laws would apply in a self defense situation is premeditated, the one you cited is ridiculous and I predict you would spend many years in jail for doing something stupid.

If you think not discussing the issue ahead of time is protecting you or somehow you feel you have found a loop hole or a secret then you will join thousands of others currently incarcerated for being to smart for the system.

Oh and your not leaving anyone guessing but shaking their heads in disbelief.

LkWd_Don · Dec 10, 2012

BigDave said:
Premeditated, interesting to say this, how would one be able to determine ahead of time on how they would articulate an incident until it happened?

My point exactly, However, if I were to say something now that just happened to resemble some future occurrence, such statements I make now, could be used against me at that time.

If you can not understand that, then I pity you and what harm you may cause yourself should you brazenly announce what you will do in any given circumstance that might then be used against you.

Maybe you would be willing to openly discuss how you might articulate your own actions in any particular circumstances where you may need to draw and use your firearm so that we all might be enlightened as to what your actions would be in advance. :arrow: (said another way, so that we might have knowledge of what your premeditated acts might be)

Remember even if you are joking and tell someone things you could imagine doing, then someone else does those things and they just happen to follow the exact same pattern that you gave, you have made yourself out to be the most likely suspect, even if you have an alibi.

BigDave · Dec 10, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
My point exactly, However, if I were to say something now that just happened to resemble some future occurrence, such statements I make now, could be used against me at that time.

If you can not understand that, then I pity you and what harm you may cause yourself should you brazenly announce what you will do in any given circumstance that might then be used against you.

Maybe you would be willing to openly discuss how you might articulate your own actions in any particular circumstances where you may need to draw and use your firearm so that we all might be enlightened as to what your actions would be in advance. :arrow: (said another way, so that we might have knowledge of what your premeditated acts might be)

Remember even if you are joking and tell someone things you could imagine doing, then someone else does those things and they just happen to follow the exact same pattern that you gave, you have made yourself out to be the most likely suspect, even if you have an alibi.

This is your scenario (bolded below) and making a statement as that is stupid and can be damming to you if you were charged in a similar incident, just what you are not trying to warn others of.

LkWd_Don said:
Read my last post to Metalhead47 and know that if you carry on property that you already know in advance is restricted by the Property Owner, if nothing else, you make your self a complete hypocrite for not respecting the same rights that you would demand they grant you without hesitation.
Do you wish to argue that point?
Would you also wish to argue that in our system of justice, that separates most acts from being accidental to being criminal is knowing in advance and intentionally violating whatever it is that you are violating?

I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not!

Keep that in mind as you violate a private property owners stated wishes.

Clearly you are not getting the idea, know the laws,act with in the laws and if involved in an incident you can articulate how you actions were within the laws. Articulating your actions does not guarantee charges will not be filed nor being found not guilty or guilty for that matter.

Anytime you use force, it places one into possible legal problems.

Back to your statement "I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not! " you have not cited of anything of value that would lead one to believe this is the case nor will it be viable.

Often AOJ (Ability Opportunity Jeopardy and by the Preponderance of the Evidence) is used to determined there is a justifiable use of force. All elements must be active at that moment in time when deadly force is used to defend oneself or that of another.

I see you have cited that being ill or a disability or some vulnerability somehow lessen the requirement for use of deadly force, it doesn't. If you are trying to cite Disparity of Force may play into a scenario but does not lessen the need for AOJ.

LkWd_Don · Dec 10, 2012

BigDave said:
~~ snipped ~~
Back to your statement "I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not! " you have not cited of anything of value that would lead one to believe this is the case nor will it be viable.
~~ snipped ~~

And clearly you do not understand the written word, or after reading,

LkWd_Don said:

LOL though I did not give any specifics in my example, which will leave everyone guessing, I also will not give specifics on how I might articulate my justification.

Click to expand...

you would not be trying to push for additional information!

What part of "I will not give specifics" did you not comprehend?

I also thought I made it fairly clear with,

LkWd_Don said:

My point exactly, However, if I were to say something now that just happened to resemble some future occurrence, such statements I make now, could be used against me at that time.

Click to expand...

as to why I would not.

Since you are still trying to get me to say something more about how or why, after stating pretty emphatically that I would not do so.. I find I must ask. do you really think others might be so stupid to simply disclose all about themselves and their possible future actions, or is that a trait that you reserve for yourself?

Click to expand...

LkWd_Don · Dec 10, 2012

BigDave said:
~~ snipped ~~
Being frail, sickly does not give one a free pass to use force or deadly force for that matter and still must be considered reasonable and not more the necessary.

You clearly are intentionally avoiding reality.

I will take it, you thinking of only a scenario where someone stuck in a wheel chair has a firearm and without any provocation what-so-ever, simply starts shooting everyone around them.

Expand your thinking beyond such narrowness, you might just find enlightenment enough, to answer your own senseless questions. If not, then there is little hope for you.

darkside · Dec 10, 2012

Does anyone remember what the original topic was?

Or have we wandered to far afield to find our way back to the tracks?

LkWd_Don · Dec 10, 2012

amlevin said:
Ah yes, the Mall.

That's where you go when you find people walking 3-4 abreast at their own leisurly speed, not caring about anyone around them.

Where at Christmas time there are so many kiosks and tables in the walk ways that it takes forever to get to the shops you want to.

Where every car parked in the Parking Lot is at risk of being broken into or stolen.

Where purses get snatched

Where low-life @-h**** follow you to the car with the intent to rob the owner or steal the car. (of course people here aren't concerned, they're armed)

You bet, a Mall is just where I want to go, especially at Christmas time. My shopping is almost done and the biggest trip I'll have to make is to the front door to get the package from the FEDEX/UPS man.

And even with knowing all of that, and knowing that many of those same brick & mortar stores have an on-line presence, there are still many who blindly ignore all that and go anyway.

Make yourself a victim if that is what you really wish to do. I choose to take my money where my firearm is welcome!

I have seen some here who mistakenly believe that just because the State preempts all firearm laws, that, that would include private property owners not being able to establish rules restricting firearms on their property. Many insist that if you are found on private property, knowingly carrying a firearm against the wishes of the property owner that you would only be subject to ejection via use of trespass laws.

You may not be in violation of RCW 9.41.300 but you are clearly violating that Property Owners rights, and most of you would claim it is so that you may exercise yours.

Do your rights outweigh his? No! I have seen many rant and rave when their rights are ignored, yet brag about incessantly violating the rights of others.

Open carrying at the mall

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member