Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Toy guns now to be considered weapons? (Lakewood WA.)

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Toy guns now to be considered weapons? (Lakewood WA.)

    Lakewood is looking at taking RCW 9.41.270, changing a few words and making their own city code from the changes.......



    Law to Change to Fit the Crime?

    Full Story Here:
    http://lakewood-jblm.patch.com/group...4=picks-6-post

    The City Council will consider a recommended ordinance change to the city’s weapon laws on August 5 perhaps to address what happened very late one evening this past month.
    Shortly before midnight on June 18, twenty-eight year old Patrick O’Meara was shot dead at a Tillicum residence by Lakewood Police.

    In a follow-up story June 24, Lt. Chris Lawler stated that the four officers at the scene believed the cap pistol O’Meara was holding at the time was a firearm.
    “Officers approached the residence and knocked on the door, announcing that they were the ‘Police’. Other officers were standing at the side of the residence at a window and spotted O’Meara inside, armed with a firearm. Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara.
    Now, in a letter dated July 25 to the Mayor and City Council, Matt Kaser, Acting Lakewood City Attorney, suggests the following change:
    “It is unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display or draw any pistol, rifle, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club or any other weapon item apparently that appears to be 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.”
    Both “weapon” and “apparently” are crossed out, while the word “item” and the phrase “that appears to be” are inserted.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,139
    Does pre emption apply? Will this be another Oak Harbor?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,165

    Shields, hammers, wrenches, "tools of violence and vandalism" to be banned in Oakland

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ned-in-Oakland

    "Who said gun bans were not a slippery slope? First toy cap-guns, now tradesman's tools, next toys like baseballs and bats, then scythes and hay-forks. What does it say of an elect that is afraid to face its armed constituency?"
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    IMHO as long as the words, "pistol, rifle," remains in the description, it would still fall under preemption. Argue as you will, but there still remains the
    "reasonably believed the instrument was a firearm" and that protection is there for NON LEO as well.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    IMHO as long as the words, "pistol, rifle," remains in the description, it would still fall under preemption. Argue as you will, but there still remains the
    "reasonably believed the instrument was a firearm" and that protection is there for NON LEO as well.

    Ahhh, I dunno, Jim.This might be splitting hairs and it might run into .290 head-on.

    Check 9A.16.040 and 9A.16.050 on the use of lethal force. Reasonable man doctrine would kick in, methinks, and that doesn't require diddling with the statute or adopting a local ordinance that runs afoul of preemption.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara. .. first link

    "Forced"? I don't think so ... the officers could have simply walked away ..so technically, this is not true.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    RCW 9.41.050
    Carrying firearms.


    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Ahhh, I dunno, Jim.This might be splitting hairs and it might run into .290 head-on.

    Check 9A.16.040 and 9A.16.050 on the use of lethal force. Reasonable man doctrine would kick in, methinks, and that doesn't require diddling with the statute or adopting a local ordinance that runs afoul of preemption.
    Dave, What I was trying to say is that the new statute, as written, would fall under preemption. As far as the reasonable man doctrine, as stated in 9A.16.040 if the officer (or LAC) reasonably believed this to be a deadly weapon, they would be covered.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 07-30-2013 at 12:43 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    Does that mean they can shoot me for using my walking stick if A cop thinks it could be used for A deadly weapon.
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Hands in Pockets !

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911er View Post
    Does that mean they can shoot me for using my walking stick if A cop thinks it could be used for A deadly weapon.
    Of course they want to be able to excuse officers who shoot you and your walking stick or kids playing airsoft.
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Wrongful death. Pure and simple. Family should sue the sh*t out of them!
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    Lakewood is looking at taking RCW 9.41.270, changing a few words and making their own city code from the changes.......



    Law to Change to Fit the Crime?

    Full Story Here:
    http://lakewood-jblm.patch.com/group...4=picks-6-post

    The City Council will consider a recommended ordinance change to the city’s weapon laws on August 5 perhaps to address what happened very late one evening this past month.
    Shortly before midnight on June 18, twenty-eight year old Patrick O’Meara was shot dead at a Tillicum residence by Lakewood Police.

    In a follow-up story June 24, Lt. Chris Lawler stated that the four officers at the scene believed the cap pistol O’Meara was holding at the time was a firearm.
    “Officers approached the residence and knocked on the door, announcing that they were the ‘Police’. Other officers were standing at the side of the residence at a window and spotted O’Meara inside, armed with a firearm. Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara.
    Now, in a letter dated July 25 to the Mayor and City Council, Matt Kaser, Acting Lakewood City Attorney, suggests the following change:
    “It is unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display or draw any pistol, rifle, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club or any other weapon item apparently that appears to be 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.”
    Both “weapon” and “apparently” are crossed out, while the word “item” and the phrase “that appears to be” are inserted.
    Looks like the city wants to CYA themselves from a wrongful death suit if some overreaction ends in the death of someone that is not truely armed.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Looks like the city wants to CYA themselves from a wrongful death suit if some overreaction ends in the death of someone that is not truely armed.
    I don't think that their proposed language changes will pass judicial scrutiny. As I understand the plain language of RCW 9.41.290, their changes are void from the get-go.
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Re: Toy guns now to be considered weapons? (Lakewood WA.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911er View Post
    Does that mean they can shoot me for using my walking stick if A cop thinks it could be used for A deadly weapon.
    As long as your are within 20 feet, geek yeah they can!
    The Tueller drill has proven conclusively that ANYONE within 20 feet and holding something is an imminent and deadly threat, even if facing a dozen officers with M16A1's set to full auto..... Only reasonable response to ensure the officers all go home that night is to fire ever found they have until you are a poor of blood, bone, and lead, with a little flesh left over if you are lucky.

    (In case you can't tell, I kind of have a thing against how the Tueller drill is misunderstood and misapplied to cause and justify bad police shootings.)

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kelso, Washington, USA
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    As long as your are within 20 feet, geek yeah they can!
    The Tueller drill has proven conclusively that ANYONE within 20 feet and holding something is an imminent and deadly threat, even if facing a dozen officers with M16A1's set to full auto..... Only reasonable response to ensure the officers all go home that night is to fire ever found they have until you are a poor of blood, bone, and lead, with a little flesh left over if you are lucky.

    (In case you can't tell, I kind of have a thing against how the Tueller drill is misunderstood and misapplied to cause and justify bad police shootings.)

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
    So I reckon unless you have your gun out in your hand, it's actually a BAD idea to bring a Gun to a knife fight? That contradicts that old saying....

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Despite repeated attempts to order O’Meara to drop the weapon, he refused and forced officers to fire their weapons,” killing O’Meara. .. first link

    "Forced"? I don't think so ... the officers could have simply walked away ..so technically, this is not true.
    Yup. I love the way police are constantly "forced" to violate every moral code by enfarcing the law, except of course when it's time to challenge the thin blue line.

  18. #18
    Regular Member cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    183
    Anybody interested in going to the Council meeting this Monday at 7pm?
    I carry a Para Ordance 1911 .45 ACP.

Posting Permissions

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