Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Snohomish County sheriff's race

  1. #1
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    A couple of days ago I visited the websites of the candidates for Snohomish County sheriff (John Lovick, Rob Beidler and Tom Greene) looking to see whether they had published a position of private ownership and carrying of firearms. None had, so I sent all three this email:

    I visited your website looking for a position statement about a certain topic, but I didn't see it addressed, so I'm contacting you directly to ask. I hope you can provide an answer.

    What is your position on the ownership, possession, and carrying - both openly and concealed - of firearms by ordinary citizens?

    As the opinions of the Sheriff about this topic set the tone of law enforcement for the entire county, I believe it is important to know where you stand.

    Thank you for your time!
    As of this morning, these are the responses I have received:

    John Lovick

    First, he called me yesterday during the day and left a message on my answering machine. I am impressed by that. Since he missed speaking to me, he also responded via email:

    Let me say first of all that I carried a weapon for 31 years as a state trooper. I support the 2nd amendment of our constitution. I would also like to invite you to an event I am having at the old Monroe High School in Monroe on Saturday August 11 at 10 AM to talk about getting a shooting range in the Sultan Basin.
    I was a little worried by the fact that he'd mentioned in his phone call that he no longer carries since leaving the WSP and was "no longer commissioned", and the above statements were not clearly and positively supportive of ownership and carry.

    I wrote back:

    Forgive me for being blunt, but neither statement answers the question. Many law enforcement officers who have carried weapons for decades are actively hostile to the idea of personal firearms ownership, and many candidates this year are professing loudly to support the 2nd Amendment while also supporting various gun control proposals.
    This morning he called again and we had a very positive discussion. He stated that he no longer carries since leaving the WSP, but that he knows that open carry and permitted concealed carry are legal and he supports both.

    I discussed the issues around "alarm" and he was aware of them, and I said that what would be really welcome is a clear statement that Snohomish County deputies would be well-trained in these issues and would know that merely carrying openly is not grounds for harassment, detention or arrest.

    He also said that he'd spoken to several other gun owners about these topics.

    I also mentioned that I had seen a story about an Idaho sheriff calling for more citizens to obtain CCW permits and he expressed interest. Here's the link I am sending him:

    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/lo...-9120238c.html

    Rating:

    Rob Beidler

    I got an email from Rob Beidler this morning, and was disappointed by what he had to say:

    I wanted to address your question about guns. I am an avid hunter, gun owner, and gun collector. If you want to get my gun or guns from me you will have to pry it from my dead body. I am for citizens with weapons. I just wish they were all trained of course. It is our right to carry. That being said, the law states that we can not carry guns in a manner that causes alarm. ie. A six shooter on your hip in the mall. I will uphold the law to the best of my ability so I would ask that you don't do that.
    I wrote back:

    > I am for citizens with weapons. I just wish they were all trained
    > of course.

    Yes, definitely. Would you consider making a public statement supporting firearms safety training in public schools? That would help reduce the likelihood of tragic accidents, as well as starting potential firearms owners off with a set of good habits that naturally lead to seeking proper training if they do decide to obtain firearms.

    > It is our right to carry. That being said, the law states that we
    > can not carry guns in a manner that causes alarm. ie. A six
    > shooter on your hip in the mall. I will uphold the law to the
    > best of my ability so I would ask that you don't do that.

    I am extremely disappointed to hear you say that. Washington is an open carry state, and 9.41.270 does not prohibit the peaceful carrying of a firearm openly in a holster. In the absence of overtly malicious intent, "a six shooter on your hip in the mall" *is* perfectly legal. The fact that some person who is frightened by the mere thought of a firearm sees one being carried openly is not legally sufficient justification for accosting, detaining or arresting the person carrying it.

    I would like to ask, is this your personal position regarding open carry, or is this the position you have been trained in?

    If the latter, a public statement on your website that you will ensure that all Snohomish Country deputies are properly trained in dealing with persons openly carrying firearms per the actual meaning of the law and will not unreasonably detain persons for peaceful open carry will go a long way towards redeeming your position.

    I direct your attention to training materials regarding this matter published by several Washington jurisdictions, collected here:

    http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/c...egory/5/24/32/

    As it is, if that is your stated position and you are unwilling to publicly change it, I cannot support your candidacy.

    Thank you for your time, and I await your response.
    We'll see what he has to say.

    Rating so far:

    Tom Greene

    No response as yet.

    Rating:

    Contact information for the candidates:

    John Lovick <jlovick@comcast.net>
    Rob Beidler <rob@robbeidlerforsheriff.com>
    Tom Greene <greeneforsheriff@hotmail.com> (I don't know whether this is direct to him or not)


  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Well, even though he hasn't responded to you yet, after reading through all the other opinions expressed on their websites and their backgrounds (and the opinions of some authors over at Sound Politics), I've decided to go with Tom Greene. I am very much hoping he responds well.

    I had already determined that Biedler was a bit shady.

    Lovick sounds like he's got a decent head on his shoulders, but that's likely because he's no longer a LEO, he's a politician and has been for quite some time. One thing I don't want for sheriff is a straight up politician that sugar coats everything and tells me something I want to hear. I hope his words were truely sincere that you've reported if he does indeed get elected, as it sounds fairly positive for not just OC'ers but gun owners as a whole.

    Thanks for the update, I had been meaning to contact them all regarding firearms issue also. Please let us know if/when Greene responds.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Excellent work John.

  4. #4
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Rob Beidler has responded, and so have I:

    On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Rob Beidler wrote:
    > My responses are actually pretty simple and strait forward.

    I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Your answers were straightforward and quite clear.

    > Firearems training in schools- Yes. It should be short and to the
    > point. Safety and recognition. Parents should be made aware
    > ahead of time in case they would like to attend. I teach firearms
    > at Everett Community College by the way. I have been a teacher
    > there for the last 9 years.

    I'm glad to hear that.

    > Open carry- Thats what I have been taught.

    I would suggest that you have been incorrectly taught, then. Did you take a look at the training bulletins at the website I suggested to you? How do they compare to what your training presented?

    > I make open statements about everything. I have nothing
    > to hide. I need to be better versed in open carry obviously
    > before I could entertain the idea of a public statement. Lastly- I
    > am proud of my stance on firearms and stand by it. I am just as
    > proud of my stance on crime fighting. They are both very
    > aggressive. I will win and lose votes because of it. So be it.
    > You ask if I am willing to go public with some of my stances on
    > these issues. All of my answers and opinions are public. Thats
    > the position I have put myself in. I don't care if its web site,
    > news paper, or flyer. Rob

    I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were not open with your positions, or that you had anything to hide. I just was thinking that a statement to me in an email doesn't help someone else interested in the same issue to make a decision. I hope I have not caused offense.

    Thank you for your time in answering my questions. I wish you luck in the election.
    Rating:

    If that's indeed what he's been taught, then maybe we need to aim Lonnie at the Snohomish County SD next...

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Well, even though he hasn't responded to you yet, after reading through all the other opinions expressed on their websites and their backgrounds (and the opinions of some authors over at Sound Politics), I've decided to go with Tom Greene. I am very much hoping he responds well.

    I had already determined that Biedler was a bit shady.

    Lovick sounds like he's got a decent head on his shoulders, but that's likely because he's no longer a LEO, he's a politician and has been for quite some time. One thing I don't want for sheriff is a straight up politician that sugar coats everything and tells me something I want to hear. I hope his words were truely sincere that you've reported if he does indeed get elected, as it sounds fairly positive for not just OC'ers but gun owners as a whole.

    Thanks for the update, I had been meaning to contact them all regarding firearms issue also. Please let us know if/when Greene responds.
    What makes you sure that Greene is not a politician too. He has been in the upper levels of command in SCSO for the last several years and is really more pol than sheriff. He has been an assistant "buttkisser" when it comes to getting money out of the County Council (as Bart's RH man). Greene and Biedler are "insiders" and to elect either one would more likely than not just perpetuate the policies and performance that began way back under the Regime of Sheriff Dodge.

    For my money, it is time for an outsider to take charge. Lovick has always been honest in his opinions and his performance as a WSP Sergeant was never questioned. He may not be the best for the job but I for one am tired of just another insider. Over the last years we went from Dodge to Scharff then Bart. We haven't had a change in philosophy in the SCSO since the 70's.

    BTW, there are lots of LEO's that upon retiring no longer carry a firearm. Similar things are true of others when they retire. I retired 4 years ago and quit wearing a watch, don't have call-waiting on my phone, don't use fax machines, and rarely use my cell phone. I don't hate any of them or want to outlaw them, I just don't want them to play the dominant role in my life that they did when I was working. Perhaps John Lovick doesn't like the idea of strapping on that gun daily like he was required to do when he was still on the patrol. Doubt seriously that he would like to see us prevented from carrying if we chose to, responsibly.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    BTW, there are lots of LEO's that upon retiring no longer carry a firearm. ... Perhaps John Lovick doesn't like the idea of strapping on that gun daily like he was required to do when he was still on the patrol.
    True enough. The only reason I even mentioned it was his statement that he doesn't carry since losing his WSP commission, and that makes me worry whether he subconsciously has a little of the "only ones" mindset. Consider what a clear statement of his position it would have been if he'd said "I open-carry myself".

    Of course, he may be CCW and (wisely) isn't advertising the fact...

    Thanks for your comments.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    Well, even though he hasn't responded to you yet, after reading through all the other opinions expressed on their websites and their backgrounds (and the opinions of some authors over at Sound Politics), I've decided to go with Tom Greene. I am very much hoping he responds well.

    I had already determined that Biedler was a bit shady.

    Lovick sounds like he's got a decent head on his shoulders, but that's likely because he's no longer a LEO, he's a politician and has been for quite some time. One thing I don't want for sheriff is a straight up politician that sugar coats everything and tells me something I want to hear. I hope his words were truely sincere that you've reported if he does indeed get elected, as it sounds fairly positive for not just OC'ers but gun owners as a whole.

    Thanks for the update, I had been meaning to contact them all regarding firearms issue also. Please let us know if/when Greene responds.
    What makes you sure that Greene is not a politician too. He has been in the upper levels of command in SCSO for the last several years and is really more pol than sheriff. He has been an assistant "buttkisser" when it comes to getting money out of the County Council (as Bart's RH man). Greene and Biedler are "insiders" and to elect either one would more likely than not just perpetuate the policies and performance that began way back under the Regime of Sheriff Dodge.

    For my money, it is time for an outsider to take charge. Lovick has always been honest in his opinions and his performance as a WSP Sergeant was never questioned. He may not be the best for the job but I for one am tired of just another insider. Over the last years we went from Dodge to Scharff then Bart. We haven't had a change in philosophy in the SCSO since the 70's.

    BTW, there are lots of LEO's that upon retiring no longer carry a firearm. Similar things are true of others when they retire. I retired 4 years ago and quit wearing a watch, don't have call-waiting on my phone, don't use fax machines, and rarely use my cell phone. I don't hate any of them or want to outlaw them, I just don't want them to play the dominant role in my life that they did when I was working. Perhaps John Lovick doesn't like the idea of strapping on that gun daily like he was required to do when he was still on the patrol. Doubt seriously that he would like to see us prevented from carrying if we chose to, responsibly.
    My thoughts exactly. My uncle retired from WSP as a Sgt. after 29 yrs and no longer carries daily. My vote is for Lovick.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    As far as I can see the only reason to vote for Lovick is to get him OUT of the House. Not good enough.

    I've been holding off sending my Primary ballot in because of this race, but right now it looks like I'll be voting for Greene.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    -

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Code:
    From: "Rob Beidler" <rob@robbeidlerforsheriff.com>
    To: {44Brent}
    Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:46:16 -0800
    Subject: Re: Your campaign
    
    Thanks for the input. I have found that by answering all questions asked of me I make some people angry with my honsest answers. I noticed that the other candidates simply do not answer. Probably a wise move? I certainly do not have that in me but many its not hard to see why others do.
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: {44Brent}
    To: rob@robbeidlerforsheriff.com
    Subject: Your campaign
    Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:51:51 -0700
    
    Dear Mr. Beidler:
    
    I recently read some comments that you had sent to a person concerning the right to carry of pistols for self-protection. You wrote the following:
    
    
    I am an avid hunter, gun owner, and gun collector. If you want to get my gun or guns from me you will have to pry it from my dead body. I am for citizens with weapons. I just wish they were all trained of course. It is our right to carry. That being said, the law states that we can not carry guns in a manner that causes alarm. ie. A six shooter on your hip in the mall. I will uphold the law to the best of my ability so I would ask that you don't do that.
    It is very clear that you are more interested in enforcing your opinions rather than the law. There is no law in WA that prohibits open carry of pistols, and the legislature made that very clear in the late 1990s when they repealed the Case and Carry law. See the documents which I have attached to this message. In the event that you win your campaign, you should assume that people will be in your jurisdiction, armed with camcorders and lawyers. In addition to lawsuits, you can expect to have videos show up on Youtube that are similar to the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI Sincerely, {44Brent} << travelers_guide.pdf >> << oc_training_bulletin_bellevue.doc >> << oc_training_bulletin_everett.doc >> << oc_training_bulletin_federal_way.pdf >> << oc_training_bulletin_kent.doc >> Rob Beidler rob@robbeidlerforsheriff.com 360.435.6891

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    Code:
    In the event that you win your campaign, you should assume that people will be in your jurisdiction, armed with camcorders and lawyers. In addition to lawsuits, you can expect to have videos show up on Youtube that are similar to the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI
    With statement like this, just what kind of an answer were you expecting. I would appear that you might well have shut off any opportunity for a meaningful dialog with the implied threat(s).

    Why not just invite him to this forum where he might express his views and in turn listen to yours and ours. Probably a little late now.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    With statement like this, just what kind of an answer were you expecting. I would appear that you might well have shut off any opportunity for a meaningful dialog with the implied threat(s).

    Why not just invite him to this forum where he might express his views and in turn listen to yours and ours. Probably a little late now.
    Sounds like an admission that you know he's wrong. Pretty simple solution for people in his county -- make sure he does not get elected. The onus is on him to know the laws and enforce them, not for me to have "meaningful dialog" that involves licking his boots.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    With statement like this, just what kind of an answer were you expecting. I would appear that you might well have shut off any opportunity for a meaningful dialog with the implied threat(s).

    Why not just invite him to this forum where he might express his views and in turn listen to yours and ours. Probably a little late now.
    Sounds like an admission that you know he's wrong. Pretty simple solution for people in his county -- make sure he does not get elected. The onus is on him to know the laws and enforce them, not for me to have "meaningful dialog" that involves licking his boots.
    No, I don't know if he is wrong or for that matter right. If I jump in his face and threaten video taping and lawyers without good reason he naturally will clam up. A politician is trying to satisfy many diverse groups and their desires. The ONLY way to find out what his true feelings are is a dialog. So much for that now with this candidate.

    Frankly I don't particularly care for any of the candidates. Two are dept insiders and to elect either will merely mean more of the same policies, one most offensive to this group is discouraging open carry. Lovick is at least an outsider when it comes to SCSO but too many years in Liberal Olympia may well have made him unacceptable too. It's too bad that we are faced with another political choice for Sheriff rather than a Law and Order type that is not predisposed to butt kissing.

    I would rather see someone like Joe Arpaio running but sadly, he likes Maricopa County in AZ.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    44Brent wrote:
    With statement like this, just what kind of an answer were you expecting. I would appear that you might well have shut off any opportunity for a meaningful dialog with the implied threat(s).

    Why not just invite him to this forum where he might express his views and in turn listen to yours and ours. Probably a little late now.
    Sounds like an admission that you know he's wrong. Pretty simple solution for people in his county -- make sure he does not get elected. The onus is on him to know the laws and enforce them, not for me to have "meaningful dialog" that involves licking his boots.
    No, I don't know if he is wrong or for that matter right. If I jump in his face and threaten video taping and lawyers without good reason he naturally will clam up. A politician is trying to satisfy many diverse groups and their desires. The ONLY way to find out what his true feelings are is a dialog. So much for that now with this candidate.

    Frankly I don't particularly care for any of the candidates. Two are dept insiders and to elect either will merely mean more of the same policies, one most offensive to this group is discouraging open carry. Lovick is at least an outsider when it comes to SCSO but too many years in Liberal Olympia may well have made him unacceptable too. It's too bad that we are faced with another political choice for Sheriff rather than a Law and Order type that is not predisposed to butt kissing.

    I would rather see someone like Joe Arpaio running but sadly, he likes Maricopa County in AZ.
    This is my whole problem with the race as well. At least with Lovick I know where he stands. I have communicated with him on several subjects and have watched his voting record. He is one I know I can live with. The other two I am unsure of.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    John, any word from Tom Greene, yet?...
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  16. #16
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Tom Greene has replied:

    John,

    I apologize for not responding sooner. My schedule is quite hectic.

    I am a 2nd Amendment supporter. Our founding fathers put it in the
    Constitution because they were wise enough to think long term and
    anticipated the potential of a future overbearing government. I am also a
    member of the Washington Arms Collectors.

    I am comfortable with our concealed weapons permit restrictions as they seem
    to be reasonable. As to open carry, to the extent of my understanding of the
    issue, we have always had the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The
    permit is obviously so we can carry the weapon concealed. Carrying a weapon
    openly in public will cause public alarm as it is rare to see someone do it,
    so we have to be prepared for the 911 calls and a balanced and measured
    response. The challenge in law enforcement in our democratic society has
    always been to balance social order with individual rights.

    I hope that helps. I ask for your vote.

    Tom
    He recognizes the "alarm" issue; I wonder what his idea of a "balanced and measured response" is? I will seek to clarify that...

    Rating so far: :? , possibly

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    Tom Greene has replied:

    John,

    I apologize for not responding sooner. My schedule is quite hectic.

    I am a 2nd Amendment supporter. Our founding fathers put it in the
    Constitution because they were wise enough to think long term and
    anticipated the potential of a future overbearing government. I am also a
    member of the Washington Arms Collectors.

    I am comfortable with our concealed weapons permit restrictions as they seem
    to be reasonable. As to open carry, to the extent of my understanding of the
    issue, we have always had the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The
    permit is obviously so we can carry the weapon concealed. Carrying a weapon
    openly in public will cause public alarm as it is rare to see someone do it,
    so we have to be prepared for the 911 calls and a balanced and measured
    response. The challenge in law enforcement in our democratic society has
    always been to balance social order with individual rights.

    I hope that helps. I ask for your vote.

    Tom
    He recognizes the "alarm" issue; I wonder what his idea of a "balanced and measured response" is? I will seek to clarify that...

    Rating so far: :? , possibly
    The current approach by SCSO (of which Mr Greene is #2 in Command) is to stop, ID, and vigorously discourage the practice. The current feeling is that if one is stopped and subjected to a lecture often enough they will cover up. That 911 call is all the justification they need to do so. Do they have better things to do? Yes, but that's just the mentality that has been leading the department since J Scharff left to become Everett PD Chief.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  18. #18
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Part of my response to Tom Greene:

    > Carrying a weapon openly in public will cause public alarm as it
    > is rare to see someone do it, so we have to be prepared for the
    > 911 calls and a balanced and measured response.

    Can you clarify exactly what you consider to be a "balanced and measured response"? It is not justifiable under the law for deputies to harass someone who is peacefully openly carrying a lawfully-owned firearm simply because it is unusual to do so and someone is alarmed by the mere presence of the firearm.

    Several Washington jursidictions (most notably KCSD) have produced training materials specifically addressing this situation in response to officers who were not aware of the law or who chose in spite of the law to harass and detain persons engaged in peaceful open carry.

    If elected, will you publish similar clear training guidelines for the SCSD?

    You may review the training bulletins here:

    http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/c...egory/5/24/32/

    > The challenge in law enforcement in our democratic society has
    > always been to balance social order with individual rights.

    Indeed. Unfortunately, too many in positions of power in the law enforcement community seem to be willing to suppress individual rights when the only benefit to social order is sparing someone's feelings.

    Thanks again for your time.

  19. #19
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Rob Beidler and I have exchanged emails again.

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Rob Beidler wrote:

    > I have taken a look at the policy/training you have provided. I
    > will review Snohomish County Code and get back to you.

    Thanks.

    > I gave my 'opinion' in my original response. I would not want
    > further responses to appear 'shady' so I will not simply give
    > opinion. I will recite code and law.

    Shady? I don't feel you've been "shady". I'm sorry that some members of the OC community have that opinion. All I have seen so far is some reluctance to discuss things in detail, which I can easily attribute to the time demands that your campaign imposes on you.

    What I am trying to determine is your current position and how you will direct the SCSD to behave if you are elected.

    You have described your current position - thank you. I feel that your position is not justified by the law, and I have provided materials in support of my position, which you are now reviewing. The final part I would like to know is whether your position and your direction of the SCSD will remain what you stated (which I believe is not in accordance with the law), or whether you will direct the SCSD to behave per the training materials that other Washington jurisdictions have published.

    Thanks again for your time.
    The "shady" bit stems from the fact that I have told them that I am posting these exchanges publicly.

    Maybe after reviewing the training bulletins he will change his position...

  20. #20
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the updates John! Keep 'em comin'!
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    It would be interesting to see their responses if the original inquiry led them to beleive the writer was Anti-Gun. I would guess the responses would be entirely different.





  22. #22
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    It would be interesting to see their responses if the original inquiry led them to beleive the writer was Anti-Gun. I would guess the responses would be entirely different.



    Sounds like a great idea you have there... I'm pretty sure their emails are fairly easy to find on their websites. Go for it!
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    Tom Greene has replied:

    Carrying a weapon openly in public will cause public alarm as it is rare to see someone do it, so we have to be prepared for the 911 calls and a balanced and measured response.
    Wow, Snohomish county must be awefully different. I have openly carried all over King County and have YET to experience this "alarm" he states WILL CAUSE. *sigh*

  24. #24
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    It would be interesting to see their responses if the original inquiry led them to beleive the writer was Anti-Gun. I would guess the responses would be entirely different.
    Sounds like a great idea you have there... I'm pretty sure their emails are fairly easy to find on their websites. Go for it!
    I tried to word my initial question as neutrally as possible - but that may have been the problem, as anti-gun types tend to be rather hysterically emotional...

    Their email addresses are in the first post to this topic.

  25. #25
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Tom Greene has replied:

    John,

    Thanks for your reply. By balanced and measured response I mean that I would expect my deputies to handle the 911 call and do a complete investigation. That means talking to all parties involved. I would expect them to approach the person with the gun cautiously. Once they ask a few questions and learn that the person is exercising their legal right to carry the gun openly without intimidating or threatening anyone, then they should inform the complaining party that the person with the gun is in compliance with the law. Just because someone calls 911 and says they are alarmed by someone else openly carrying a firearm, doesn't mean a law is being broken. However, we do have a responsibility to investigate.

    Yes, I would see that a training bullitin about open carry is issued to SCSO personnel.

    Tom
    Rating:

    I'm going to drop one more note to John Lovick and see if I can get a statement this clear from him as well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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