OT? Clark County, another gun charge

reposting from another forum...


A 19 who had his unloaded guns in his vehicle while headed to target practice, stopped to pick up a friend, somebody saw the gun under his seat and called it in, he gets arrested.


It was originally charged under 9.41.050, but the prosecutor had no case there, so it got amended...


He was arrested on 9.41.240. There was a 9MM H&K handgun under the seat passenger, unloaded. Not in a bag or case. And also a shotgun behind the back seat. Time of day was around 11 AM. Officers get an anonymous call that someone saw it (alledged individual stepped out of the car to speak to a friend, leaving the door open briefly while he stood next to his car, so someone maybe could have seen it- there were other people around.) Officer shows up, asks client to open the door and get out and speak to him, client complies and admits guns are there and was on the way to the range, then of course officer can see it under the seat with the door open.

Link?

jfslicer said:

Link?

Click to expand...

http://waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=31122

The reason I bring this up is... Clark County & Vancouver has been a hotbed for gun issues the last few years.

Kirk Kirby is a case that went all wrong. Kirk did not have the funds to fight a proper case and they let them plead to a lesser charge and require a gun safety course and he got his firearm back a year later..... Kirk was standing by his vehicle near a Albertsons waiting for his wife to come out when the police showed up and charged him under .270

Another case was Josh Watson, a Open Carrier who was at a pizza place and charged under .270 - He took it to court and lost and is in the process of appealing.

So now we are to the third case.........

View attachment 10949

jfslicer said:

Link?

Click to expand...

lol

Well,,,

After reading the thread at WAGUNS,, this was my reply...

Lots to cover here, so please keep up...
Spencer means nothing. it is not something that took effect!
It was a guy found guilty of 9.41.270, that is all!


Their is NO "OPEN CARRY" LAW!!!




He does NOT need to meet TWO exceptions!
Either 9.41.050 (3)(a) or
9.41.060 (8) or (9)..!
Fact,, he does meet, the best, 9.41.050 (3)(a) AND 9.41.060 (8), less best !!!


But see Florida V. J.L.!!!
An ANONYMOUS TIP!!! can NOT be used to cause the stop in the first place,,, it should all be thrown OUT!!

Bill Starks said:

The reason I bring this up is... Clark County & Vancouver has been a hotbed for gun issues the last few years.

Kirk Kirby is a case that went all wrong. Kirk did not have the funds to fight a proper case and they let them plead to a lesser charge and require a gun safety course and he got his firearm back a year later..... Kirk was standing by his vehicle near a Albertsons waiting for his wife to come out when the police showed up and charged him under .270

Another case was Josh Watson, a Open Carrier who was at a pizza place and charged under .270 - He took it to court and lost and is in the process of appealing.

So now we are to the third case.........

Click to expand...

How the hell can standing around with a holstered sidearm be a 270??!!
The Spencer rules specify what the conditions must be for a 270. What happened with the Watson case? Did he do jury or bench? Was there something else not mentioned?

1245A Defender said:

But see Florida V. J.L.!!!
An ANONYMOUS TIP!!! can NOT be used to cause the stop in the first place,,, it should all be thrown OUT!!

Click to expand...

They can respond to an anonymous tip, they just can't be used to formulate RAS or PC. If they walk up to you and talk to you and you answer and waive your rights no law has been broken. At least by the officer.

1245A Defender said:

Spencer means nothing. it is not something that took effect!
It was a guy found guilty of 9.41.270, that is all

Click to expand...

I don't understand that statement. Spencer states the rules for 270. That's like saying Terry doesn't have anything to do with the 4th.

509rifas said:

They can respond to an anonymous tip, they just can't be used to formulate RAS or PC. If they walk up to you and talk to you and you answer and waive your rights no law has been broken. At least by the officer.

Click to expand...

Lawyer up and wait for the check to be delivered.

Slam dunk it seems. Especially if the victim has a witness or two that would testify to his reason for having a unloaded pistol in his possession.

Who wants to start a class action law suit against Clark Co and Vancouver for unjustly charging people with violations of 9.41.270? Sounds like they enjoy the freedom to use that as a club against ANYONE armed who isn't one of THEM. They see it as the end run around our rights.

I don't get the violation, as none really apply, as they're all exempted by another RCW.

According to 9.41.240, the first exemption, from 9.41.40, does not apply as the alleged offender is over 18.

Exemption to 9.41.240 that applies (via 9.41.050) is 9.41.060 (8): Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

The violation of 9.41.050 (3)(a)- A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle- is exempt provided for by 9.41.060 (8), based on the reported account of events.

If the kid wasn't actually going target shooting, and just knows the exemption and that's why he said he's going shooting, then it's bad news bears.

The user on waguns.org that is arguing the case and wrapper exemption is incorrect in its application, as that only applies to carrying the weapon concealed: 9.40.50 is exempted by 9.40.60 (9)- Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper. I'm pretty sure a gun on the floorboard is not "carrying."

sirpuma said:

Who wants to start a class action law suit against Clark Co and Vancouver for unjustly charging people with violations of 9.41.270? Sounds like they enjoy the freedom to use that as a club against ANYONE armed who isn't one of THEM. They see it as the end run around our rights.

Click to expand...

Have you been arrested and charged in Clark Co or Vancouver? You need standing, I can't sue for you getting arrested. Only people who have been arrested or perhaps even unlawfully detained would have standing in a class action suit, and you would probably need to show a pattern for it to be a class action case and not individual cases that have similar subject matter but there's no real connection. Also, were these in municipal courts? The Co wouldn't come into play. If it's in different cities in the same county it may as well be Seattle and Mabton.

Bill Starks said:

The reason I bring this up is... Clark County & Vancouver has been a hotbed for gun issues the last few years.

Kirk Kirby is a case that went all wrong. Kirk did not have the funds to fight a proper case and they let them plead to a lesser charge and require a gun safety course and he got his firearm back a year later..... Kirk was standing by his vehicle near a Albertsons waiting for his wife to come out when the police showed up and charged him under .270

Another case was Josh Watson, a Open Carrier who was at a pizza place and charged under .270 - He took it to court and lost and is in the process of appealing.

So now we are to the third case.........

Click to expand...

Bill the last I remember Josh did not file his appeal in the proper time and it was dropped. . ??

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

If we don't start pooling our resources and fighting this madness we amount to nothing higher than the status of a paper tiger and shithouse lawyers.

Any updates on Vancouver or Clark County?

It's dead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

509rifas said:

Have you been arrested and charged in Clark Co or Vancouver? You need standing, I can't sue for you getting arrested. Only people who have been arrested or perhaps even unlawfully detained would have standing in a class action suit, and you would probably need to show a pattern for it to be a class action case and not individual cases that have similar subject matter but there's no real connection. Also, were these in municipal courts? The Co wouldn't come into play. If it's in different cities in the same county it may as well be Seattle and Mabton.

Click to expand...

One may have standing if the action/situation prevents them from doing something otherwise legal.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing