• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

WA Legislature considering banning open carry in chambers

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
The cops should have arrested the ********** who were holding their guns in their hands. It was clearly illegal and the cops should have enforced the law to show a clear line between lawful open carry and illegally handling a firearm in public.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
There's a difference between handing someone a gun and holding it in the ready position. The latter is brandishing.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
The difference would be established caselaw and notable incidents where police have shot and even killed people doing that.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
The difference would be established caselaw and notable incidents where police have shot and even killed people doing that.

The cops shoot a lot of people for a lot of things. Like a 7 yo little girl sleeping on a couch. It's not a good argument for a law.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The photos attached to the articles linked by the OP look a lot like "demonstrating" to me. Or, something akin to brandishing. It is not merely OCing a firearm for self-defense.

It would be a real shame to see a rule change based on some provocative conduct from a small minority. But it is because of the small minority unable/unwilling to govern themselves that most all rules are required.

Just as there is a time and place for signs, shouting, honking and waving, there are times and places where such conduct is not appropriate. Ditto for how these firearms are being handled. The spectator gallery of a State legislature is not the place for such conduct, IMO.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
and lots of people say the same thing about the holstered open carry of unloaded pistols in California..... and those that open carry rifles in Texas.... sounds like what is being stated is that people should submit to the suppression of their right to bear arms based upon the perceived tolerance of the government in power.

What limit would you impose?

When the finger enters the trigger guard? When the finger is rested on the trigger? Only when they have an ND? Or only if the ND hits a person rather than just putting a hole in the building?

What about one of these good folks covering you with his/her barrel as they swing that long gun around? You ok with that so long as they don't have their finger on the trigger when they do?

Are you and they certain that the floors/ceilings of the building will reliably stop a rifle round (often way more powerful than a handgun round) rather than being penetrated and someone on the next (or lower) level being at risk? On the flip side, does the floor or ceiling present a credible risk of ricochet and thus danger to everyone in the room if there is an ND? None of us would select a flat concrete slab as backstop for shooting. On the flip side, none of us would use a couple of sheets of plywood and sheetrock as a bullet catcher. Did this fine examples of responsible gun owners give any real thought at all to safety?

What exactly is the safe direction to point a rifle when inside a building such as this? Or do basic safety rules not apply if someone is trying to make a statement about RKBA?

Beyond some objective safety questions, we have the public relations / image questions.

Of course, our rights shouldn't be subject to others' opinions about them. But they are. Call it tyranny if you like. That is reality and it is exactly why we show up at legislative meetings, why we work to elect pro-RKBA candidates to office. It is insanity to engage in political work and then ignore the political ramifications of our conduct.

In this case, the conduct won't just affect those who think handling long guns in public is a fine idea. The rule change will likely affect all OC'd firearms.

Charles
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Who's the low brow with the mask? Jesus . . .

Not a good showing for our side. I was going to put my name on the calendar - glad I didn't.

Perhaps you could define "our side". These folks were obviously pro 2A. If that isn't "your side" what side are you on?
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
So how about muzzle discipline then?

MD is important without a doubt.
Funny side note. I was on a roller coaster last fall at a county fair.
And I specifically remember thinking about my old CCW instructor trying to teach me about muzzle safety.
He said something to the effect that you should always think about your gun like it has a constant lazer beam shooting out of it and you can never pass it over anything you didn't want to cut in half.
I remember thinking "all those poor souls" as I zipped around in circles on that roller coaster. The whole time my holstered .45 what zapping people in half below. :)
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
There's no brandishing statute in Washington.

Stop blaming people who exercise their rights for us loosing them. Blame the F'ing state!


C,mom Robert, that's not entirely accurate. RCW 9.41.270 (1) "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently 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."

While the term "brandishing" is not used in this text, the language is there that could easily be interpreted to define the act. And I can tell you that more than one person at yesterday's rally, including one attorney, said the way some of those folks handled their firearms could easily have alarmed some people, and maybe even intimidated some people.

Whether you, or I, or anyone else on this forum agrees with that, that's the way it is. Light up the flame thrower if you must, but to insist that yesterday's little display was just people exercising their rights might be a hair intellectually dishonest. The images appearing on KOMO's website, and those taken by the Seattle P-I.com suggest more than merely an exercise of the right to bear arms.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...penly-carrying-guns-in-chamber-288857421.html

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...ympia-trade-guns-in-house-gallery/#29808101=0


And just in time for this conversation, The Associated Press reports the Senate HAS BANNED the open carry of firearms in the Senate chamber gallery.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/...weighs-change-on-openly.html?sp=/99/289/&rh=1

http://www.examiner.com/article/will-demonstration-house-gallery-lead-to-new-rules

What was illegal about it? What statute was being violated?

See above.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
C,mom Robert, that's not entirely accurate. RCW 9.41.270 (1) "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently 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."

While the term "brandishing" is not used in this text, the language is there that could easily be interpreted to define the act. And I can tell you that more than one person at yesterday's rally, including one attorney, said the way some of those folks handled their firearms could easily have alarmed some people, and maybe even intimidated some people.

Whether you, or I, or anyone else on this forum agrees with that, that's the way it is. Light up the flame thrower if you must, but to insist that yesterday's little display was just people exercising their rights might be a hair intellectually dishonest. The images appearing on KOMO's website, and those taken by the Seattle P-I.com suggest more than merely an exercise of the right to bear arms.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...penly-carrying-guns-in-chamber-288857421.html

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...ympia-trade-guns-in-house-gallery/#29808101=0


And just in time for this conversation, The Associated Press reports the Senate HAS BANNED the open carry of firearms in the Senate chamber gallery.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/...weighs-change-on-openly.html?sp=/99/289/&rh=1

http://www.examiner.com/article/will-demonstration-house-gallery-lead-to-new-rules



See above.

I don't find too much to disagree with there except that words have meanings and brandishing could be included in that definition. It does not seem to apply to the picture above.
 
Top