Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: OC Legislation, anyone?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    I'm wondering if any of you have considered promoting the OC cause through legislationin Olympia. I can think of a couple of bills that would be useful right off the bat.

    One would be tofix the OC in a vehicle problem.

    Another would be a billto provide real penalties for LEO's who illegally threaten, detain, etc. people who legally carry, includingOC. That kind of harassment is their way of saying "Stay in the closet." To them it's bad enough that we have a right to be armed to begin with, but when people openlypublicize that right, it becomes intolerable to them and they're out to quash it through terror. Very likelysome of themintend to generate shooting incidents to use to get the right of OC stripped. Threats of legal action against themdon't seem to be doing the trick, not yet anyhow. Education will never fix the problem with these types. They know the law, they simply don't respect our rights.

    I've been writing bills (including this year's Campus Carry bill)and doing the maverick lobbyist thing since 2002, and I can tell you that nothing pushes an issue to the forefront like getting a bill introduced. A bill like this might not go far anytime soon, but justits introduction would make power-mad LEO's sit up and take notice. The lobbying power provided by the people on this forum will makelegislators take notice too, and that in turn will lean harder on law enforcement.

    You'd have to select an official lobbyist, probably Lonnie I'd imagine. If you want to try this route, I have lots of tips to offer and would love to work with you on it.

    Kevin Schmadeka



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Personally I think Washington's laws on carry in vehicles should be more like LA, MS, and NM: You're car is part of your extended domain, and you should be able to carry there, open or concealed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    We can certainly write a bill that makes it that way.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    How about adding a penaltyfor keeping or maintaining local ordinances in violation of 9.41.290? Right now, if the local legislative body takes a "piss-off" stance then there's really nothing to do other than take it through the courts on your dime. Something like making the corporate body liable for your legal fees, and maybe some individual exposure. Maybe they would think twice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    Hmm,civil liabilities andgross misdemeanorcharges forviolating preemption. That sounds like a possibility, and that issue is already in the limelight. I bet there's a lawmaker or two who might pick that up, although the current Seattle case rests on their wacked out interpretation, so it might still have to be settled in court before it could be applied. Still, the real goal is to encourage them to back off by pushing the issue in Olympia, so if that works it doesn't have to actually get enacted.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Kevin, I like your ideas.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I would be very up for that although my experiece in writing a bill is slim and none.I believe however that we need legislation to protect the rights we have.So far My experience with oc and leos has been positive.However I do know of those that seem to think they can make up the rules as we go along.A highschool friend of my daughters is a fed way cop.Likes to drive though parking lots and arbitrarily run license plates.Whats next.Sitting some where having coffee and having police start asking everyone for their "papers".SS used to do this.There are aliot of very good police officers out there but we need to reighn in the ones that are not.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    What we really need is a Washington state citizens defense league kind of an off shoot of the vcdl to help protect our rights and lobby for these things.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    Sea_Chicken wrote:
    What we really need is a Washington state citizens defense league kind of an off shoot of the vcdl to help protect our rights and lobby for these things.
    great idea... but don't forget schools," won't somebody please think of the children!"

  10. #10
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Sea_Chicken wrote:
    What we really need is a Washington state citizens defense league kind of an off shoot of the vcdl to help protect our rights and lobby for these things.
    http://www.nwcdl.org/

    Though, it's really just an offshoot of OCDO.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    I haven't gotten familiar with nwcdl yet... is it set up for actual lobbying in Olympia, or is it just another forum? By that I don't mean having a full time lobbyist in place, just having a designated rep who can be the go-to guy for legislators is enough.

    As I was explaining to Lonnie off list, this isn't something that requires funding or any high level of organization. Step one is to pick a rep. I've got lots of projects of my own and am not a dedicated OC'er at this time, so itshould be someone who is. Step two is to write the bill or bills you want to promote, and that I can help with. Just one or two bills at a time is a good way to go so the designated rep isn't swamped. Third, we start talking to lawmakers and I can help with that too.

    Most all the bill promotion can be done by phone and email, with little expense involved, though an occasional appearance at the capitol certainly helps. I myself don't even accept donations of money, only volunteer help. As far as bills, with what's been going on lately, I'd prioritize putting the brakes on these rogue LEO's before one of them decides toengineer a justified shooting.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    I wouldent mind volunteering with what i can when i get back into the state next year.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Personally I think Washington's laws on carry in vehicles should be more like LA, MS, and NM: You're car is part of your extended domain, and you should be able to carry there, open or concealed.
    Yeah loaded guns in a vehicle would be nice, but CPL's take care of that for most of us. I just want to be able to put a loaded gun on the seat next to me for comfort, especially if I'm CCing.

    Also, a citizen's arrest law would be nice. Right now if you slap cuffs on a suspect after stopping a felony you can still be charged with unlawful imprisonment. Granted you can just keep a gun on them until the cops get there, but we all know how trigger happy cops can be...especially if they think they are walking into an active convenience store robbery...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    ...A highschool friend of my daughters is a fed way cop.Likes to drive though parking lots and arbitrarily run license plates.Whats next.Sitting some where having coffee and having police start asking everyone for their "papers".SS used to do this...

    What's he looking for? Stolen plates? As far as I'm considered that's stolen property in plain view.

    Now if you want to talk about DWI stops, you have my ear. Instead of "Are you drunk?" Now it's "You are out after curfew, so papers please, oh and an itinerary as well. I need to know where you're coming from and where you're going."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    We're forming something like the VCDL right now here in Idaho.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    tanman wrote:
    What's he looking for? Stolen plates? As far as I'm considered that's stolen property in plain view.
    Could be looking for any number of things. Stolen vehicles, mismatched plates (plates and/or vehicle are stolen), vehicles that return a hit on associated arrest warrants. I'm surprised Federal Way has the time to do that - perhaps on day shift. When I did a Swing/Grave ride-along, it was running one call to the other. But I don't have a problem with them doing this; it's not comparable to "paper's please."

    But back to the OP topic. Another thread reminded me that I need to find this thread and add something - not likely to pass, but there are a lot of other states with guns-at-worklaws that I would greatly appreciate. My employer is strictly no-guns at work. This is a 24/7 operation and they strongly encourage taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking. Yet there is no provision for those coming on or off shift at odd hours and being expected to remain disarmed as if they were on company property. Their illogic knows no bounds. I don't expect to be able to carry at work, but to enter and secure my weapon in my locker with my lock does not seem unreasonable. Better than locking it in my car and parking off-property.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    tanman wrote:
    Yeah loaded guns in a vehicle would be nice, but CPL's take care of that for most of us. I just want to be able to put a loaded gun on the seat next to me for comfort, especially if I'm CCing.
    Not sure if I am reading this wrong, but you do know if you have a CPL you can have a pistol laying next to you loaded, or anywhere for that fact, while driving.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Shy_Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Personally I think Washington's laws on carry in vehicles should be more like LA, MS, and NM: You're car is part of your extended domain, and you should be able to carry there, open or concealed.
    Although LA has been trying to make it illegal to smoke in your vehicle if you have children in the car with you. While I agree with the concept of limiting the amount of second hand smoke your children get, the fact that they are pushing it as a law annoys and scares the hell out of me. The car should be an extention of your home as these states provide, however I just want to make it clear that this is not necessarily the direction that things are going; even in states that already have it as a provision.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    Gene Beasley wrote:
    Another thread reminded me that I need to find this thread and add something - not likely to pass, but there are a lot of other states with guns-at-worklaws that I would greatly appreciate. My employer is strictly no-guns at work. This is a 24/7 operation and they strongly encourage taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking. Yet there is no provision for those coming on or off shift at odd hours and being expected to remain disarmed as if they were on company property. Their illogic knows no bounds. I don't expect to be able to carry at work, but to enter and secure my weapon in my locker with my lock does not seem unreasonable. Better than locking it in my car and parking off-property.
    One of the bills I've promoted in Olympiais Alan Korwin's Gun Free Zone Liability Act bill, but thus far no takers. It has been introduced in several states though, so it's an idea that could move when people have enough interest in it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    kschmadeka wrote:
    One of the bills I've promoted in Olympiais Alan Korwin's Gun Free Zone Liability Act bill, but thus far no takers. It has been introduced in several states though, so it's an idea that could move when people have enough interest in it.
    Great idea, however, I don't see it working. It would be to hard to quantify exactly what an unarmed, but trained person in a gun-free zone was actually capable of doing.This is primarily demonstrated by college gun free zones (private propery- sort of, in most cases). What exactly could that prof at V-tech have done other than hold the door shut? Shoot the ************! So could I... But now he's dead- how do you prove what he could have done?

    Two big issues;

    1) Must be implemented, good luck getting legislators to go for it.

    2) Even if they do, to have a good test case resulting in civil penalties, there must be a normally armed citizen (a cop would be best because people seem to believe they are superheros at stopping crime), unarmed in a gun free zone when something goes down and they MUST SURVIVE THE INCIDENT. Then it would have to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that had they been armed, they could have stopped the incident with no civilian casualties.Basically,if they were on video at the time of the incident, behindthe active shooter, making shooting gestures at the back of his head and then you bring their range targets into court showing their capabilities, it could still be a crap shoot...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    We're better off arguing that since most schools can not be completely enclosed and secured with metal detectors, they are not secure enoughto keep shooters out. Thus, as has been shown, they are not secure and should not be restricted in the same manner as courthouses (where there are usually armed LEO personnel hanging out). What we need is a good test case where an active campusshooter situation is diffused by an armed citizen. Unfortunatally, there will probably never be a shooting in Utah or Oklahoma cause the shooters know people have guns. Thus, it befalls armed citizens to break rules (not laws) in order to obtain security and if and when it happens be villified for even having the gunon a campusin the first place. We must be prepared to define the issue if this does happen, rather than letting the gun grabbing sheeple do it for us.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    The purpose of a "Gun Free Zone Liability Act " is to encourage property managers to not create "Gun Free Zones".

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    The purpose of a "Gun Free Zone Liability Act " is to encourage property managers to not create "Gun Free Zones".
    Roger that, that's apparent. But is it enforceable? Does it actually have any teeth?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    It's actually a lot less complicated that all that. Currently employers, business owners, etc. cite "liability" as their reason for creating gun free zones, without assuming liability for harm that results. This bill would put all the liability on the other side of the coin, and it would do so while respecting private property rights, which is a major objection raised against the "guns at work" bills currently going around. Here's the text. It was rewritten for Washington State.



    I'm working on a new website now that will have info on all theseprojects posted. If anyone's familiar with Adobe Dreamweaver, I could use some tips...





    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:


    (1) (a) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm by the victim or another citizen could have helped the individual or other citizen defend against such conduct


    (b) For the purposes of this section, “criminal conduct” shall include offenses for which the use of armed force to prevent a crime or make an arrest would be considered lawful under RCW 9A.16.040 or RCW 9A.16.050.


    (c) For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.



    (2) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of the government that allows lawful carrying of weapons on its property shall be immune from liability for any damages that may result.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    kschmadeka wrote:
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    (1) (a) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm by the victim or another citizen could have helped the individual or other citizen defend against such criminal conduct.

    (b) For the purposes of this section, “criminal conduct” shall include offenses for which the use of armed force to prevent a crime or make an arrest would be considered lawful under RCW 9A.16.040 or RCW 9A.16.050.

    (c) For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.

    (2) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of the government that allows lawful carrying of weapons on its property shall be immune from liability for any damages that may result.
    I like, but would consider the above minor tweaks.

    I've worked with several software packages and find them somewhat problematic (maybe it's just me). I won't derail this thread on this. If you want to know more, PM me. PHP is cool and portable.

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
  •