• 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.

Constitution, Training Bulletins and Court Opinions

j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

I'll add more as I find them. Let's see how many copies we can send individually to the various jusrisdictions with issues. How about we start with Olympia. Steve tells me that the City Manager is the head guy there. Perhaps he should receive a bunch ofletters from us that contain all of these pages and expresses our outrage for citizen treatment there. Might also want to mail the same package to the Chief of Police and City Attorney.




Added: Grrrrrr Someone please tell me how I can add more than oneattachment!!!
 
eBratt

eBratt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
271
Location
Fort Collins Area, CO
imported post

Perhaps the easiest way to distribute those would be to make a zip file with all of them in there. As for court cases, you're missing State vs. Casad. Great work otherwise in compiling them.
 
Gene Beasley

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

eBratt wrote:
Perhaps the easiest way to distribute those would be to make a zip file with all of them in there. As for court cases, you're missing State vs. Casad. Great work otherwise in compiling them.
Click to expand...
Here's a copy of Casad (the right Casad - who would have thunk it :?).
 

Attachments

  • State v Casad.pdf
    96.8 KB · Views: 459
S

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Good list, thanks! A couple of things I had missed. Forgot my thumbdrive so not downloading anything today... haven't looked on my computer to see if I have the stuff to zip everything together into .zip and don't think a linux .tar file will do most people here anygood... :lol:



Steve
 
C

carhas0

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
161
Location
, ,
imported post

State v. Spencer would also be a good inclusion as it defines what warrants alarm (and what doesn't).
 
j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

sean-1286 wrote:
State v. Spencer would also be a good inclusion as it defines what warrants alarm (and what doesn't).
Click to expand...

Anyone have this one or can point me in the right direction? Thanks!

I'm glad to see these being downloaded so many times in such a short period.
 
C

carhas0

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
161
Location
, ,
imported post

I found State v. Spencer:
 

Attachments

  • state v spencer.pdf
    53.7 KB · Views: 388
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

sean-1286 wrote:
I found State v. Spencer:
Click to expand...

The only statement in Spencer that helps the OC cause is a footnote that actually came from another case:

"

[align=left]6 Furthermore, the court reasoned, even if the phrase "warrants alarm" in the present statute could be considered vague, it can be interpreted narrowly for[/align]
[align=left]purposes of upholding the statute. The court then stated:[/align]
[align=left]If a weapon is displayed in a manner, under circumstances and at a time and place so that it poses a threat to another person, such a[/align]
[align=left]display would warrant alarm for the safety of another. Thus, narrowly construing the phrase to apply to only conduct that poses a[/align]
[align=left]threat to others gives the phrase a narrow and definite focus and saves it from vagueness.[/align]
Maciolek, at 268 n.3.

"

The court felt that 9.41.270 itself is not vague or overbroad as it addresses conduct. By extension, if one is open carrying yet behaving themself it is perfectly legal behavior. I wouldn't quote Spencer, I'd go for Maciolek and focus on the issue of conduct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top