1. Tukwila PD has finally responded, they will be doing shift briefings and perhaps a formal training bulletin using the Federal Way bulletin. This is good news. Also, Lynnwood PD gave me a status update, they will get back to me this week on the issues addressed. Commander Stanifer at Lynnwood PD has been very professional in his dealings with me on this issue. I finally also made contact with Bellevue PD, with Lt. Lynch. I will be calling and asking for the email address and sending him an email myself addressing the issues.
2. I just wanted to let all of you know, I made a serious error in a previous email. The previous email stated that the Portland City Council passed a Parks Ordinance that required concealed carry only in a draft of the ordinances. The wording of the ordinance and the statement that it was going to the City Council in November and that it was going to be passed. It would appear that there was a delay in voting on the ordinance and it is NOT LAW. I apologize for this error.
I received the following email from the Portland Parks and Recreation contact that I've made on the issue:
Dear Mr. Wilson, Thank you for your messages regarding weapons in Portland Parks. The prohibition of weapons in city parks has been a park rule under Portland City Code 20.04.040 since June 1988. Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) wants to incorporate this and certain other park rules into the revised City Code Chapter 20.12 for clarity and ease of reference. We appreciate your comments on the earlier draft 20.12.050 and will take the following amended section to City Council on January 11, 2007. Proposed 20.12.050 Possession of Weapons. "No person shall possess in any Park any thing specifically designed for and presently capable of causing, or carried with the intent to threaten or cause, bodily harm to another. Things prohibited under this Section include, but are not limited to: any firearm, pellet gun, spring-loaded weapon, stun gun or taser, any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any knife with a blade longer than 3-½ inches, any dirk, dagger, ice-pick, sling shot, slungshot, metal knuckles, nunchaku, studded handcoverings, swords, straight razors, tear gas containers, saps, sap gloves, hatchets or axes. *The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to handguns lawfully carried by persons in accordance with valid concealed handgun permits. *The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to any thing possessed or used to carry out actions authorized by any contract or permit in any Park." If you have other comments or concerns, you are welcome to testify on this matter at City Council on 1-11-07. Please check http://www.portlandonline. com click on Auditors office for the Council agenda, times, etc. Once again, many thanks for your interest in Portland Parks and Recreation. Mark M. Warrington, CPP Public Safety Manager Portland Parks & Recreation
Though this draft is certainly better than what was proposed before (concealed was removed), there still can be points of confusion with the "in accordance". There is a Portland City Council Meeting that he does talk about, that occurs on 1/11/2007.
There is going to be a hearing at 2PM, apparently. Per the rules above, any person wanting to speak with the Council on an agenda item must sign up 30 minutes ahead of the scheduled hearing. Though the language in of itself is not threatening directly, it would be better to let PCC 14A.60.010 address firearms controls in parks (as parks are specifically identified as public places), with all of the exemptions kept thereto.
There is already a law in regards to firearms in parks, contained in PCC 14A.60.010. Allowing the ordinance to pass as currently written may subject the language of the parks ordinance to possible preemption challenge by law enforcement officers and other statutorily exempt persons under ORS 166.173, who are NOT exempt from the language of the parks ordinance, to have the entire ordinance struck down. Stripping out firearms entirely from the proposed city code would preserve it from statutory preemption challenge, as there is no general weapons preemption of weapon rules in state statute for weapons other than firearms.
The reason I don't use any wording about rights is because Portland City Council is entirely anti-gun. Addressing them from a "gun rights" perspective is entirely futile. Addressing it from "Oh, we have to re-write the code due to a court striking it down" and giving them more work is not futile, however.
I do thank Mr. Warrington for his professionalism, however. He did get the word "concealed" out of the section, and from my discussions with him, he does understand that open carry of a handgun with a CHL is legal in Portland Parks. This was after consultation with the City Attorney's Office, which is good and hopefully they will give the same answer when they address the issues with Portland PD (still in process, no response from the Citizens Review Committee on my appeal request).
Per the last email, has anyone done any recon of 1221 SW 4th Avenue, or the "City of Portland" building which is a separate building? See if there's any security screening or anything of the sort?
3. Beaverton, Oregon replica ban hearing:
In the previous email, I had cautioned against carrying into the City Hall due to the existence of a municipal court in City Hall. In Washington State, all courts (including municipal courts) are verboten to carry in however they are required (except for the federal courts) to give safe storage for carry while doing your business there. Oregon has no such provision In Washington this is a misdemeanor, however under ORS 166.370(2), this is a felony, which will destroy your gun rights.
It would appear, however, that the language of Oregon law defines "court facility" in a more narrow form than Washington State law. Here is the language of the statute:
166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(2) "Court facility" means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.
It would appear that municipal courts are NOT included in the definition of court facility. However this does not mean that a presiding judge of the Beaverton municipal court may not have entered an order, similar to what happened in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where violating the order means contempt of court. These orders are obviously illegal and subject to attack in a higher court (Circuit Court in this case), but cooling your jets in a jailcell should be left to the people who are really willing to stick their neck out.
If someone would like to scout the Beaverton City Hall unarmed to see to what extent the "court" goes to within the building, metal detector or other forms of weapon screening see if there are any obvious "no guns" signs, or anything along those lines, it would be greatly appreciated. I say "unarmed" because the point of scouting is to do recon, not test the waters ahead.
The Beaverton City hall is located at 4755 SW Griffith Dr. Beaverton, OR 97076.
I will unfortunately not be able to attend the hearing that's supposedly scheduled on the 22nd (I will not be in the Northwest at that point), however I have heard that a few Beaverton area residents on this list will attend. Once I have more solid answers as to where and when the 22nd hearing will occur, I will post on this list.
Usually this is a weekly update, however I was in California and away from the internet so I didn't have much time to sit down. However the wait is worth it due to how much was done just in the last week.
1. Beaverton incident inspires quicker action in training officers on legality.
Ken Kirkham, who is fast becoming a hero due to the efforts that he has done in Oregon (most specifically with Portland's Parks Ordinance, which now fully complies with state law), was going to open carry at the Beaverton City Council Meeting. Both Ken and I were concerned that this replica weapon ban ordinance would result in harassment against carriers of real handguns, that an officer may use it as an opportunity to seize a gun to "inspect" that it is real. The idea of law enforcement officers handling guns that they are not trained in or familiar with is concerning due to the possibility of negligent discharge causing death or injury to a lawful carrier or someone else. That someone else could decide to sue the handgun carrier as a co-defendant, using the "If he had concealed, the gun would not have been handled by the officer" statement. In a litigious environment, it's a real threat. Even if you win, you still lose because you're out several thousand dollars. If anyone, however, can point to an ORS making the police solely responsible for such handling, or proper case law, I would greatly appreciate it.
Also, the replica ban legitimizes calls for service to law enforcement against those who open carry in holsters. The idea of people panicking over open carry is not a symptom that more laws are needed, it's a symptom that the people making the phone calls either need to be more educated that open carry of real handguns is legal, or need to see a therapist because of their irrational emotions.
Kirkham posted this on OpenCarry.org:
Holy crap, I just came back from the Beaverton City Council meeting on the proposed replica gun ban.I went OCing to the meeting. Prior to the meeting I talked to a police officer present and explained that I planned to make a presentation to the council pointing out the absurdity of banning replicas when real guns can be open carried legally.The officer quietly freaked out. He was very nervous and within a couple of minutes I met all the officers on duty. At one point I had 5-6 officers around me as we discussed the issue of legal open carry. They all believed initially that OC was illegal in public places.At one point an officer read the ORS166.370 and decided that I could carry but only concealed. I read the section to him and explained the exemption and he realized that OC with a concealed carry permit was indeed legal.After 15-20 minutes of discussion the officer in charge asked me to not OC. He was really concerned about the reaction of the people in the city council meeting freaking out. I reluctantly agreed and made a disclaimer statement at the beginning of my presentation that basically stated that I was disappointed that I was not able to OC during the presentation and that I had been OCing but now was carrying concealed.I explained that their toy weapon ban was absurd and that I could OC a real gun but posession of a toy gun would be against the law. I also suggested that the way the proposed law was written that it put police officers in much greater risk because any gun that was orange would be ignored by the police under the proposed ban.Once I said that I was carrying the mayor and members of the city council stopped listening so I am fairly certain that they did not hear anything I was saying.The good news is that the police did hear me and one of the city attorneys asked me to call him tomorrow and a high ranking office also asked me to call him tomorrow. The officers got that OC is legal. I mentioned that it would be very beneficial for a training bullentin to be released as it was obvious that they were unaware of the issues.I gave it a shot, so to speak, and it was really scary for several minutes until the police figured out that I was not a bad guy.
Though Ken chose to carry concealed to the meeting due to the lack of knowledge all around (there was some statements about the municipal court existing there afterwards), I am hoping that this will not be the same case next time around. That leads to the next item
2. A Talk with the Beaverton City Attorney's Office
On OpenCarry.org, I made this statement to the OCDO members of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is another tremendous trouble spot for open carry:
Instead of arguing from the perspective of a 5 year old asking for permission from daddy, ask from the position of an adult with more authority over the matter.
Kirkham was asked to contact Bill Kirby, who is the Deputy City Attorney who actually drafted the replica ban ordinance. Ken had talked with him for a bit, however due to not having the laws in front of him and other issues, he asked if it would be OK if I myself spoke with him personally about the laws in regards to open carry.
I was originally going to call him. However, due to my return trip from California going right through the Portland Metro area on Wednesday, and the TriMet meeting happening on that day, I decided to make a personal appearance at the City Attorney's Office.
I sat down with him for almost 2 hours, pouring over the Oregon Revised Statutes in regards to firearms, specifically ORS 166.360 to 380, and ORS 166.170 to 176. As far as real firearms are concerned, by the end of the meeting we were on the same page: Without a CHL, no one statewide can carry in a public building, and without a CHL, no one in the City of Beaverton can carry in a public place. I also addressed the issues of police handling firearms by legitimate CHL holders, that can cause accidents as I stated above. Not to mention that throughout the meeting, when I took off my jacket in the meeting area (with lots of lawbooks), I was open carrying. Not a problem, not an issue. He paid attention to the issues at hand, and wasn't concerned at all with it.
Near the end of the meeting we did discuss the replica weapons ban and the constitutional problems that it presents. I brought up December 2005 Police Chief Magazine article as a possible point of contention. Due to the fact that a replica gun looks like a real firearm, it'll be hard to sustain any convictions against anyone who happens to have a concealed handgun license. Basically, if the gun looks real in a holster, and the person presents a CHL so that they are shown to be exempted from the Beaverton Loaded Firearm Ordinance, it would be difficult to cite or arrest anyone without the possibility of a lawsuit filed against the department. The proposed ordinance states that first violations, unless at a school or within 1000 feet of a school, is just a civil offense citation (misdemeanor for within schools, thousand feet around them, or after the first violation).
I also brought up the case in Louisiana where the courts there (using the US Constitution) reversed a felon in possession charge as well as drug charges due to the reason for the arrest being done was that the person was open carrying a handgun in a holster. As there was no knowledge before that the person is a convicted felon, the charges were all thrown out because open carry is legal in Louisiana. There is nothing requiring a person to talk to a Beaverton officer except perhaps to show them their concealed handgun license (for loaded firearm ordinance purposes). Beyond that, they are not required to stick around or speak with a law enforcement officer, and essentially the existence of lawful open carry in Beaverton makes it impossible for anyone of adult age with a CHL to be convicted. The entire point of the exercise was to prove how absurd this ban is, and the reasoning for the calls could be for lawful activity.
Though Mr. Kirby did not agree with some of my points, he did agree with that the a CHL holder would likely beat any citation by refusing to speak and stating that he does not consent to any inspections of his weapon (by no means no physical resistance if they choose to inspect anyway). Most people will state it's the real thing, however consensual encounters with law enforcement is something that some people choose to avoid.
Mr. Kirby also stated that a training bulletin will be sent out post haste, and I was given a timetable of 1 week. It looks like Beaverton will be the first city to issue a training bulletin in the state of Oregon. The interesting part, however, is that the bulletin will keep the above article in mind. Stay tuned for more.
3. Video of Portland City Council Meeting
The Portland City Council Meeting which delt with the parks ordinance is now online. It's rather hidden away as I had to futz with the URL to find it.
Pertinent minutes are 38:00 to 40:00 (Kirkham's Testimony), 58:00 to 1:08:00 (Votes on the amendments).
4. TriMet Stupidity
It's looking more and more like that with TriMet, it's going to take an "incident" to occur to get them to take any notice. Ken Kirkham was taking a video of the hearing, I still need to get the official audio to clarify some things that were said by board members. It's an .mpg file that is around 106MB. I am creating a torrent file that'll allow a person to share the file around. uTorrent is the smallest and least intrusive torrent program I have seen, and you can search for it online if you want to. If someone wants to host the file directly for download, I would greatly appreciate it.
I must warn all of you of two things: First, I am not the best public speaker. In fact, I am no where near good. I'm a much better writer than a speaker to hostile crowds. Second, the comments by Brian Playfair (the man on the far right, white haired) may aggravate and annoy people by the fact that it seems that he intentionally misrepresented the effect of the ordinance. I emailed Mr. Playfair and asked him why he used the example of "quick draw exercise" (which would be illegal anyway) when what he was talking about in the emails was open carry of a handgun in a holster, not quick drawing. I think I already know the answer. The entire meeting video is 10 minutes or so.
Unfortunately, this means that as far as TriMet goes, someone will have to challenge the interdiction order through the administrative process and if not successful, through the courts. As I am starting a new job that'll have me working from 7AM to 4PM Monday through Friday starting February 12th, it'll be difficult until I can get a shift that gives me a weekday off. I am currently researching the interdiction and expulsion process with TriMet, and I will post my findings soon about the process.
I finally got back home after the marathon session in Portland on Wednesday, and received a letter stating that my appeal is denied because they don't do appeals for dismissal. This essentially means that all administrative remedies are exhausted for the complaint against the training division and more specifically Officer Tom Forsyth for telling me that open carry was illegal in all circumstances by private citizens.
There are some good things in the background with this, however. In the original dismissal letter, they had stated that they will be handing the complaint letter to the Portland City Attorney's Office for them to do what they need to do. The City Attorney's office can send out a training bulletin to the Portland Police Bureau which would be required reading by them. I am attempting to leverage some contacts and some names to get a hold of someone who would be willing to have a sit down discussion similar to what I did with Mr. Kirby. Needless to say, I will have a busy Monday on the phone.
6. Updates in Washington State:
A few cities that gave me a 1 month timetable for issuance of a bulletin is overdue. I have sent reminder emails. I've also contacted a few transit agencies that have still not responded, and I will follow up with calls on Monday, especially to King County Metro who apparently had an incident on one of their buses.
We are also tracking a situation in Washington with Walmart, specifically the Bremerton PD, telling Walmart local managers that open carry is illegal. Bremerton PD will be contacted on Monday for sending of the training bulletin.
That's it for now.
Founder, Pacific Northwest Open Carry
Yahoo IM: lonnie.wilson
I want to apologize for the lack of updates on this list. When I originally started this group, I was working a job that had me working graveyard and I had an abundance of time writing up updates. Now this is no longer the case. A lot more recent information is over on OpenCarry.org's Washington and Oregon pages, however there are some who are here and not there, so I will update the list.
1) Certain Tacoma Police Department Officers Ill-Trained, Power Hungry, and Just Plain Stupid
In less than a 24 Hour Period, two different Tacoma Police Officers, Officers Antush and Olsen, committed violations of civil rights because of their lack of knowledge of open carry's legality at the beginning. The second incident, involving Officer Olsen, however, will make your blood boil. It certainly did with me. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/2732.html
Worst part was his acknowledgment that open carry was legal, but he would literally steal his gun next time he carries on the Ruston Ave Waterfront.
Tacoma PD has also been violating people's rights in other ways.
I am in the process of attempting to get the dash cam and audio tape if available from Tacoma PD. Also, contact has been made with Tacoma PD's internally through a contact. I have directed a few people to NOT contact the Chief of Police
of Tacoma PD or their city council, and to let this be handled exclusively by myself, Mainsail, compmanio365 (I will not identify their real names unless permission is given), and my contact who has a connection with Tacoma PD.
In terms of dealing with Tacoma Police Department, I handed out a warning to everyone in regards to contact with Tacoma PD that can apply to any "anti-gun" city: DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CONTACT THE POLICE CHIEF OR THE MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL. These persons within the department and of course in the mayor/council are politicians and political appointees. Unless you have a feel for the area and know for a fact that they are pro-gun and pro-open carry, it's generally a bad idea. When you contact a mid-level, such as IAD, Training Department, and so on, you're dealing with career law enforcement who generally doesn't have an anti-gun axe to grind to go the Legislature and demand a return of Case and Carry, or a full out ban on open carry. Though any such ban would likely be unconstitutional, that takes years to sort out in the courts.
The Tacoma cases, My Situation with the State Ferries, and other assorted are basically becoming Washington's version of "Starbuck's Incidents" that occurred in Virginia where two men were cited for violation of a law that did not apply to their situations.
We play the situation smart, and we can not only have our cake, we can eat it too.
2) Washington State Ferries
It would appear that my letter to the Ferries had an impact. I contacted Susan Harris by pager (she is the customer information manager for WSF) and she called me back on my cellphone at 4:40PM on Friday. I asked her what was the status of the situation, I had to jog her memory a little, and she stated that the Ferry Terminal Employees and the WSP have been corrected on the subject. I asked if the Kittitas and Cathlamet crews were notified. She stated that she didn't know there was a problem with the vessel crews. *headdesk* I guess the whole "taking pictures of my license plate on board the boat" thing got missed. Anyway, I advised her of what happened on Kittitas, and I warned her that I would be traveling to Whidbey Island this weekend and it would be best for the crews of the boats to know that fact that it is lawful to open carry.
She stated that she would call the Port Captains for both boats and direct them to notify the vessel crew, and that a wider advisory for the rest of the Ferry system was coming. I thanked her for her time, and for the fact that she called me when most try to get off work early for Memorial Day!
I will be on this situation in regards to WSF, and as soon as the advisory is sent out, I will PRA it and add it to the training bulletins. Assuming that WSF's does what it's supposed to do, the State Ferries will be the second state agency to acknowledge the legality of open carry (Department of Licensing being the first).
3) Seattle PD Privacy Act Problems
Though not directly open carry related, many of us in the open carry movement also believe in standing up for our rights in other areas, such as free speech and free expression, as well as privacy.
One of the most important statutory rights that we have is the ability under most circumstances to give social security numbers to most state and local government agencies. This is contained in Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974:
Though there are certain exceptions, gun purchases are not one of them, nor are criminal background checks.
I was picking up some guns from Seattle PD (they were seized and Seattle PD was questioning his ability to own firearms under federal law), and they gave me a form called "Background Check for Firearm Release".
SSN is there. No section 7(b) privacy warning. So I figured that filling it out and faxing it in with the statute number and law section would work, not disclosed if any per....
Well, I had to argue with someone named Haley for 5 minutes. She claimed that records (Which does the firearm background checks) would not accept the form without an SSN. I told her that the background check is EXACTLY like the carry license checks that Records does and they do NOT require an SSN. She absolutely insisted.
If it were my own guns, I would have fought. However, because they weren't actually and they were in impound two years too long, I capitulated and gave that information over to get her to shut up and quit holding things up. I was in a rush, I was in a hurry, and I didn't have time. However, I did finally, after regretting that decision immediately, contacted the leader of the Evidence Unit. She wasn't in (Her name is Sgt. Granard), but I called her and gave her the specifics, and gave her the statute cite for the privacy act.
The next day, she called me back, and told me that I was correct, and that new forms would be drawn up immediately, putting on a section 7b privacy warning and that it is voluntary. Haley probably wasn't having a good conversation with the Sgt.
Don't make the mistake that I did. Patience wins out over rushing. If I had simply waited a day or two, it would have all been resolved in my favor before the fact.
4) King County Sheriffs Bulletin Coming
Apparently this bulletin was issued months ago, and there was apparently a communication breakdown and my contact with KSCO did not receive the bulletin. This is being addressed this week. With any luck I'll put it up on the list and hand it over to OpenCarry.org. Another thing to slap Seattle PD Training with.
5) Edmonds PD Incident
A few weeks ago, there was the case of a man who had the cops called on him for an encased rifle. The news refused to identify him however I am now in possession of the police report. Though there are certainly incorrect statements made by officers (there was a pat down frisk search done on Vernon, which is his real first name), it looks like the majority of the situation being blown out of per portion was by the 911 Dispatch Agency Named "SnoCom". I have a PDA request for the telephone and radio traffic in regards to this incident now that I have the case file. After a review of SnoCom's response to the incident, I will be giving a critique along with the King County Sheriffs Office Bulletin, the Federal Way bulletin, and so on. If SnoCom can change the way it receives "man with a gun" calls in terms of asking an extra question. Luckily, both telephone traffic and radio traffic will be in mp3 format, and available from the files section.
6) Seattle PD....again
Seattle PD has a huge propensity to keep the whole "head in sand" thing going. I'm probably going to have to act like the mom who won't stop knocking on their teenage kids door.
7) George Washington
Postings have been made by someone named "George Washington" from WashingtonCeasefire.com for the last few months. Generally, George has been poking a stick in the eye of the Washington Ceasefire organization (I got a chuckle out of Natalie Riebers criminal and civil records being posted online) is OK, however the group has been asked to send over video of open carry in downtown Seattle and near Washington Ceasefire (the official gun control organization) location.
For the same reason as the symposium about 6 months ago with an anti-gun author, I have to strongly discourage sending over video to WashingtonCeasefire.com, or open carry near Washington Ceasefire to get a reaction. The point of open carrying about our daily lives is to be ambassadors for our gun rights. Trying to get a reaction out of the Washington Ceasefire organization would be a tremendously fatal error for open carry in this state, and the next time an open carry ban does pass, there likely will not a CPL exemption.
Not to mention the fact that WashingtonCeasefire.com is being targeted in an ICANN dispute, now the real Washington Ceasefire is paying very close attention to the website, along with all of the information on open carry (training bulletins have been posted there), and so on. This leads to the next item.
8) Seattle Open Carry Issues, and Pride Festivities?
From a strategic perspective, open carry in Seattle.is a delicate subject. Summer approaches and I desire to open carry more so for my own reasons there than most people here. For me, I will be attending the Seattle Pride festivities in both Capitol Hill and the north downtown area. At this point, I have decided to open carry. You can bet I'll have training bulletins not just in my car, but in my hand. I will also be wearing a Pink Pistols shirt and some of the rest of the "gear" involving Pride, because I will be a full attendant there and involved in the festivities, or at least try to be. The festivities are all open to the public and the only people who can enforce rules in Seattle Parks is Seattle PD. Which is partly why I've been hopping on Seattle PD's training division to issue an advisory on the subject so hard, though I wish I tried harder or found out who issued them earlier.
I am putting in a call to any member of the GLBT community who also has membership in this group, in the pdxpinkpistols group (which I am ccing in this email, and a few members may attend Seattle Pride), as well as a few other individuals that I am BCC'ing, to open carry at Seattle Pride festivities in Capitol Hill. There are several reasons why I am only asking members of the GBLT community to join in on this.
First is the fact that Seattle PD would be tremendously standoffish on arresting those who are openly GLBT and attending Pride.
Second is the fact that most Seattle PD knows that open carry is legal. The issue here is the 20% who are power trippers who don't care that open carry is legal, but will harass (Officer Olsen, anyone?). Though these particular police tend to mess with those with political differences (war protests), there are certain political power plays within Seattle that make the GLBT community a powerful political force and that even these cops fear them. There's a saying: May not like what he/she is doing, but they're a member of my community, and we won't tolerate the harassment if what he's doing is lawful.
Third is the comfort level with the environment that Pride entails. Though certainly I would welcome open carry by a huge group that we can gather, this is a situation that only GLBT members of this group and other allied groups should particularly risk. Open carry at Pride festivities by a person not easily identified as GLBT would be extraordinarily provocative and considered very threatening. Again, the best ambassador to a cause is someone that the people you are trying to educate can identify with. They'll identify with someone like myself and ask questions, they won't with someone not easily identified as a member of the GLBT community. As someone on this list would say, the general GLBT community would likely say "You ain't one of us, and you ain't from 'round here".
Can I guarantee that you won't be arrested?
No, I can't. I can give copies of training advisories from King County, the State Ferries, Federal Way, Kent, and Des Moines (which was a 1 page copy along with a print out of Federal Way), a copy of the Chief's Counsel, a copy of the state preemption statute to anyone who asks, however I ask that you please have them in a vanilla envelope in hand at all times.
What if a law enforcement officer (Seattle PD) demands that I hand over ID or my CPL?
Politely advise them that a CPL is not required to open carry under RCW 9.41.050(1), and that if their reason for asking is because they think the case and carry law is still in affect, it is not. I will be finding the Session Law and posting it into the files section, which is 97-200, repealing the case and carry law, for dissemination, as well as the CJTC advisory that case and carry was repealed.
If they insist under threat of arrest, I would say "give it to them". Nothing is served by you being in jail.. Address the violation of rights afterwards, not while arguing with the cops on the street. Do get their badge number, and a business card, and call me immediately so I can get a hold of the Seattle PD Officer in charge.
What if they demand concealment under threat of arrest?
Assuming for a moment that you did hand them all of the training bulletins (remember, you only have copies, don't feel bad if they keep them, just call me up and I'll get more reprinted for you for the rest), and already have a badge, badge number, and supervisor's name, demand a supervisor on the spot to file a complaint. That's at the point they graduate to Officer Olsen level and it needs to be corrected on the spot. The police supervisors tend to be a little more level headed on the subject and will read training advisories. If they won't do so, do what they say and CONCEAL IT. Call me up, and I will find the Seattle PD supervisor in charge of security for the event and have the issue addressed on the spot by me. Once it's addressed, I will call and give an all clear. Speaking of which, I will be finding out who Seattle PD's supervisor for the festivities at both locations are soon. Maybe none of this will happen, but there's always a possibility that there may be a little turnover from other parts of the Seattle PD area that didn't get the memo from the commander in charge.
What about the tightness of the area with all of the people walking about.
If anyone remembers my previous thread on retention holsters, I would highly suggest buying one. Your typical belt loop with a strap Galco holster isn't going to do the job for retention. In a crowded area, be aware of your surroundings, and please invest in a minimum of a Level 2 retention holster. I have selected the Blackhawk Serpa Level 2 holster for my Springfield XD-40, as there's a distinct lack of Level 3 retention holsters for my open carry gun, and there won't be one before Pride released. I will be upgrading to Level 3 as soon as it's released.
9) What about Portland or Portland Pride?
Different and thornier issue. Unlike Seattle Pride, Portland Pride is a "donation" system with a walled off gate and security at the door. Though there are certainly no "rules" on the Northwest Pride addressing the issue, it would appear that protesters are allowed to be within the fenced area, and you'd think that carriers would be allowed, however I have been told that this is not the case (please correct if I'm wrong). By all rights, those with Oregon Concealed Handgun Licenses are exempt from Portland loaded firearm ban, and should be allowed into the festival. However unlike Seattle, where most officers know it's legal, in Portland it's the exact opposite scenario.
I will be in attendance at Portland's Pride Parade. However, I am still trying to get Beaverton to issue a training advisory on public place carry, so I can slap Portland with it. The person I've been emailing has not been responsive, however I will be sending an email to him, to Harry Auerbach, and a few others: "I will be attending Portland Pride Parade. I and others will be open carrying. They will have their CHL's, and there will be someone with a video camera. Unless you want your officers harassing GLBT people for lawful activity being put all over Youtube, train your officers now. You have two weeks.". Unlike before, I am throwing down a gauntlet that I intend to follow through on. Again, will be finding out who the commander in charge of security is for Portland Pride as well, hopefully with all officers getting a memo BEFORE the festivities start.
10) A call for recording equipment and business cards.
We also may need camera folk as well who are willing to carry concealed to record, and we need audio recorders on our persons for sure to record our police interactions during the Pride festivities.
I am also calling for business card designs, that'll promote open carry, the pacific northwest open carry group, and opencarry.org. On the back, we can do a "why I carry openly" thing.
That's it for now. My apologies for the lack of update. If anyone wants to contact me directly, please feel free to do so, especially when it comes to volunteers for the Pride stuff in Portland and Seattle.
Founder, Pacific Northwest Open Carry