Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Lacey, WA recognizes OC as lawful : supportive

  1. #1
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    , ,

    Post imported post

    I had a chance to talk to an LPD officer 'off the record', one on one, very casual.

    Just so we're clear, He was NOT on duty, and did NOT represent the department when he was speaking, he was speaking his own opinions and experience.

    He seemed to be very supportive of open carry, knew about through the incident at Cabela's, but didn't understand what the organization was about. I explained to him about the US 2nd, the state constituion, the educational aspect of responsible ownership and carrying, as well as education of those around us. He fully agreed, and understands not only the laws around OC (for the most part, I'll get to that later) but also the sentiment around it (responsibility, education, etc).

    Some points from the conversation...

    He acknowledged that the incident at Cabela's wasn't handled as well as it should have, but officers are always going to err on the side of caution when met with an unkown involving a weapon, I completely understand his POV. From what I was told, the officers involved in the 'incident' were 'talked to' by higher ups, and although no formal training bulletin was issued, it was brought up as an issue @ briefings, where it was made clear that it was completely legal.

    I asked him about how he would suggest unloading a firearm when entering a vehicle if you don't have a CPL, he responded that it was not necessary. I cited the RCW that makes it unlawful to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle, and he understood/read it to mean a CONCEALED loaded weapon in a vehicle (unless licensed), he said he appreciated the heads up, and explained that not everything is held to the letter of the law, it's mostly up to the officers discretion, but it got him MORE intersted now because he hadn't looked at the laws in a while...

    I asked him about his interpretation of 'Concealed' since state law is vague on the issue, he interprets it as any part of the weapon being concealed or not 100% visible. I asked him if he considered a shirt covering part of the grip to be 'concealed', he said that if any part of the pistol is covered or not visible by anything other than a holster that it's considered concealed.

    He seemed to appreciate the education/responsibility aspect, indicating that it's nice that there are responsible people out there, trying to educate others about gun laws, he even remarked that it's even harder when people like Nichols are trying to make illegal rules,lol...

    I spent probably about 20 mins. talking to him, VERY nice guy, very supportive, very understanding. While not 100% up on state law, I greatly value his input. It gives us the opportunity to see how 'Joe Officer' sees things, and an opportunity to educate.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

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

    Post imported post

    Sounds like you had a pleasant conversation and this officer was at least open to learning any information that he wasn't aware of or had perhaps been misinformed about. Overall, a good thing. My guess is that he'll take the time to look up an RCW here and there, as we've done here over time, and build a mental database of what the laws are. In doing so, he'll not only be able to determine whether or not someone is legal to OC/CC/whatever, but also do his job better... which is better for the community in the long run.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09

Posting Permissions

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