Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Spokane OC Issues

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    I had a great talk with the city attorney. We went over the police training bulletin and open carry issues.
    The following is my take. Read carefully what I write and think about it,

    The city, is of course, fully aware of state preemption.
    The training bulletin contains other information that does not pertain to OC.
    What we are really looking at are the "people". For example, state and local laws do not prohibit open carry into city owned parks. It is after you get into the park that the "warrants alarm" comes in. People who are not aware will call the police. We have a lot of work to do in this area.
    It has become our job to educate the people. (Please do not go into our education system.) We need to make OC a common event. Not the unicorn sighting event. We need to make OC so common that the mom with three kids at the park does not call 911 to report AMWAG. That she has her own side arm and is fully aware of her rights. We need hundreds of OC people out there to inform people of there rights. It is our responsibility to eliminate "warrants alarm" calls.
    What we need is "mass communication" my friends. Billboards, maybe ch 4 morning news, a lot of people watch it. If you want this to go forward the information needs to get out there.





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    I had a great talk with the city attorney. We went over the police training bulletin and open carry issues.
    The following is my take. Read carefully what I write and think about it,

    The city, is of course, fully aware of state preemption.
    The training bulletin contains other information that does not pertain to OC.
    What we are really looking at are the "people". For example, state and local laws do not prohibit open carry into city owned parks. It is after you get into the park that the "warrants alarm" comes in. People who are not aware will call the police. We have a lot of work to do in this area.
    It has become our job to educate the people. (Please do not go into our education system.) We need to make OC a common event. Not the unicorn sighting event. We need to make OC so common that the mom with three kids at the park does not call 911 to report AMWAG. That she has her own side arm and is fully aware of her rights. We need hundreds of OC people out there to inform people of there rights. It is our responsibility to eliminate "warrants alarm" calls.
    What we need is "mass communication" my friends. Billboards, maybe ch 4 morning news, a lot of people watch it. If you want this to go forward the information needs to get out there.



    Refer the moron to the Casad case as to why their "warrants alarm" crap is illegal and not applicable.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Happy 3000th post Fred!

    Regarding OC in parks, a few weeks back just_a_car and myself were metal detecting in an Olympia park. Of course we were both OCing, and lots of people talked with us about guns and metal detecting, but nobody was unnerved or concerned. Lots of pleasant conversation though.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    I didn't even notice. Thanks.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    So is what you wrote your opinion or the City Attorney's? I'm confused . . . .

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    I completley agree with Fetch. We need to make a big OC statement here in Spokane. We need to get everyone together that believes in OC to get together and join in one massive OC meet. We can also get media coverage. I fully believe and support my rights of OC! Any ideas Fetch?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Plains, ,
    Posts
    388

    Post imported post

    It is after you get into the park that the "warrants alarm" comes in. People who are not aware will call the police. We have a lot of work to do in this area.
    Is it really up to us to educate the "people", or is it more appropriate for the police to understand what "warrants alarm" really is?

    IMO, there will always be the possibility of someone making a MWAG call. At that time it will be up to the police to decide whether or not this particular call deserves a Terry stop or not. If it is just me, or you, going about our business then it does not raise to that level, something the police have to be acutely aware of. When they cruise by to take a look, they will have to make a decision on whether or not to make contact with that person at that time taking into account all of the pertinent laws and opinions. There is precedent that the mere open carry of a gun does not rise to the level of a Terry stop.

    I would love to see hundreds of people OC in Spokane, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. We need to figure out a way to get the word out, and large events are the way to do it. That is one orf the reasons why I have reserved a table at the Friends of the NRA banquet in March. Even among gun owners, OC is something that is misunderstood. I figure the FRNA banquest would be a good place to get the word out just by having the table placard, the flyers, and about 10 people OCing. If we can convert one or two at that place, then perhaps they can each convert one person and so on.

    I feel this is something that will take a multiple pronged approach, with the police knowing that not every MWAG "warrants alarm" being a large part of the education. I believe the education of the people will take longer, just because there are so many people and not a lot of people who OC. I will talk to anyone who asks about OC, but many (most) people either don't see the gun, or don't want to approach a person OCing and ask questions unless they are a "gun person".

    Maybe it is time for a big OC picnic in a public park with media being invited, and an open invite to the police to stop by for a burger and a chat.

    It would be a start.

    bob




















  8. #8
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Maybe it is time for a big OC picnic in a public park with media being invited, and an open invite to the police to stop by for a burger and a chat.
    I am in the works with folks from Oregon & Idaho to do a tri-state OC weekend meet this coming Spring/Summer.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Bear was the first to reply and the first to miss my point. I will try to make it clearer.
    The city att I spoke with is no moron. He is very well educated and knows the laws. He works for us.
    We need to educate the people so that incidents like Casad don't happen. If in my example the lady in the park with three kids sees one of us with a side arm is educated to the point that she does not call the police, that she instead has her own side arm for protection. It will be at this point that the "warrants alarm" is a non issue.
    Deanf, the city is playing by the rules. They know where and when state preemption is used. The city att is in full agreement that OC into parks is legal.
    Again, if we want this to go forward, we need to be the teachers.

    edited.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    Bear was the first to reply and the first to miss my point. I will try to make it clearer.
    The city att I spoke with is no moron. He is very well educated and knows the laws. He works for us.
    We need to educate the people so that incidents like Casad don't happen. If in my example the lady in the park with three kids sees one of us with a side arm is educated to the point that she does not call the police, that she instead has her own side arm for protection. It will be at this point that the "warrants alarm" is not a non issue.
    Deanf, the city is playing by the rules. They know where and when state preemption is used. The city att is in full agrement that OC into parks is legal.
    Again, if we want this to go forward, we need to be the teachers.
    So does that mean they will be changing that BS paragraph about the park in the final training bulletin?

    What were there comments on all the Heller stuff they were throwing in there?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    David.Car,
    The city att does not know why the Heller case was included. ???
    Since AG McKenna's opinion about RCW 9.41.290 was issued after the bulletin was published, it (the bulletin) will be revised as stated in the bulletin. Again, the city is fully aware that OC onto city owned property is legal.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    Bear was the first to reply and the first to miss my point. I will try to make it clearer.
    The city att I spoke with is no moron. He is very well educated and knows the laws. He works for us.
    We need to educate the people so that incidents like Casad don't happen. If in my example the lady in the park with three kids sees one of us with a side arm is educated to the point that she does not call the police, that she instead has her own side arm for protection. It will be at this point that the "warrants alarm" is a non issue.
    Deanf, the city is playing by the rules. They know where and when state preemption is used. The city att is in full agreement that OC into parks is legal.
    Again, if we want this to go forward, we need to be the teachers.

    edited.
    You miss the point. The "warrants alarm" has been covered by case law in the Casad case and just carrying a firearm does nor meet the standard. So either the city attorney is not aware, which makes him unqualified to make statements about what warrants alarm, or a moronic political hack.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    David.Car,
    The city att does not know why the Heller case was included. ???
    Since AG McKenna's opinion about RCW 9.41.290 was issued after the bulletin was published, it (the bulletin) will be revised as stated in the bulletin. Again, the city is fully aware that OC onto city owned property is legal.
    Well that is good news than. Did they happen to mention when or how they might be redoing the bulletin than?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Bear,
    I took time off from my work to establish communication with the city through my city council representative and city attorney about OC so that we have some validity. My intent is to make the OC movement known to the person who interprets the law for the city. I would like to have had more people in the meeting with me but no one else could make it. This was the first meeting and probably will not be the last.

    Now if your intent is to storm in and berate city officials, call them morons, then you make an appointment, no just show up, storm in and stomp around until someone notices you.

    Thank you for your support.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    Bear,
    I took time off from my work to establish communication with the city through my city council representative and city attorney about OC so that we have some validity. My intent is to make the OC movement known to the person who interprets the law for the city. I would like to have had more people in the meeting with me but no one else could make it. This was the first meeting and probably will not be the last.

    Now if your intent is to storm in and berate city officials, call them morons, then you make an appointment, no just show up, storm in and stomp around until someone notices you.

    Thank you for your support.
    I don't intend anything as I don't live on your side of the state and will never meet any of them much less speak with them. But if he guy is still tossing around that "Warrants alarm" crap then he is totally misinformed and need to be enlightened, but his job is to know this stuff and if he doesn't he is unqualified and if he does know it and still plays the warrants alarm card then he needs to be hammered. City Attorneys by definition are political hacks or they wouldn't have the job. This guy thinks you are to stupid to know his is wrong or a lair with this warrants alarm stuff. Also why, just because they works for the city do they deserve respect and/or us kissing his or any other city employee's azz just because they work for the city. Which means they work for you and not the other way around? BTW, I don't have to storm, I always have gotten noticed. It's called command attitude.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    I don't intend anything as I don't live on your side of the state and will never meet any of them much less speak with them. But if he guy is still tossing around that "Warrants alarm" crap then he is totally misinformed and need to be enlightened, but his job is to know this stuff and if he doesn't he is unqualified and if he does know it and still plays the warrants alarm card then he needs to be hammered. City Attorneys by definition are political hacks or they wouldn't have the job. This guy thinks you are to stupid to know his is wrong or a lair with this warrants alarm stuff. Also why, just because they works for the city do they deserve respect and/or us kissing his or any other city employee's azz just because they work for the city. Which means they work for you and not the other way around? BTW, I don't have to storm, I always have gotten noticed. It's called command attitude.
    I think you misunderstood the post bear. It sounds to me like the city attny does understand the "warrants alarm" issue from a legal standpoint and is not offering it as an objection to OC.

    The point the OP is trying to make is that so long as PEOPLE freak out when they simply see a gun, the calls are going to be made. Those people are most assuredly ALARMED, otherwise they wouldn't call. The point is that the alarm wasn't warranted by the legal definition, hence the call for "education".

    When folks are so quick to start slinging names and insults around, the window to actually change minds slams shut pretty quickly.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    I don't intend anything as I don't live on your side of the state and will never meet any of them much less speak with them. But if he guy is still tossing around that "Warrants alarm" crap then he is totally misinformed and need to be enlightened, but his job is to know this stuff and if he doesn't he is unqualified and if he does know it and still plays the warrants alarm card then he needs to be hammered. City Attorneys by definition are political hacks or they wouldn't have the job. This guy thinks you are to stupid to know his is wrong or a lair with this warrants alarm stuff. Also why, just because they works for the city do they deserve respect and/or us kissing his or any other city employee's azz just because they work for the city. Which means they work for you and not the other way around? BTW, I don't have to storm, I always have gotten noticed. It's called command attitude.
    I think you misunderstood the post bear. It sounds to me like the city attny does understand the "warrants alarm" issue from a legal standpoint and is not offering it as an objection to OC.

    The point the OP is trying to make is that so long as PEOPLE freak out when they simply see a gun, the calls are going to be made. Those people are most assuredly ALARMED, otherwise they wouldn't call. The point is that the alarm wasn't warranted by the legal definition, hence the call for "education".

    When folks are so quick to start slinging names and insults around, the window to actually change minds slams shut pretty quickly.
    I don't think I misunderstood anything. The OP said and I quote;

    "It is after you get into the park that the "warrants alarm" comes in. People who are not aware will call the police. We have a lot of work to do in this area."

    Regardless of whether the sheeple call the cops or not, it still doesn't warrant alarm and the City Attorney should know that and make sure the cops do too thru the new training bulletin. Otherwise the City attorney is not doing his job.


  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    I don't think I misunderstood anything. The OP said and I quote;

    "It is after you get into the park that the "warrants alarm" comes in. People who are not aware will call the police. We have a lot of work to do in this area."

    Regardless of whether the sheeple call the cops or not, it still doesn't warrant alarm and the City Attorney should know that and make sure the cops do too thru the new training bulletin. Otherwise the City attorney is not doing his job.

    The OP isn't claiming the city attny said that though. The OP very clearly says this is "his take" on the conversation he had with the city attny. I read the above as explaining why education is needed, so people aren't alarmed.

    I get 911 calls from people "alarmed" that someone is taking a picture of their house (happens all the time and is perfectly legal). People are in fact alarmed and either don't realize there is no need to be or just plain disagree and think it should be wrong to OC.

    Fact of life is, if we get a MWAG call, cops are going to be sent out. NOTHING wrong or illegal about that. Now what the cops do when they get there may become an issue, but they are going to be sent none the less. To get a call, not send cops because carrying a gun isn't illegal and then to have that person commit a crime would be derelict.

    You can't blame the city attny, mayor or anyone else for irrational people being freaked when theysee a gun. Sounds to me like the city attny is onthe same page, he understands it. The next step is to educate the public.

    Fetch, please clarify on this point. I hate to see someone being called a moron when they are on our side.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    I don't think I misunderstood anything. The OP said and I quote;

    "It is after you get into the park that the "warrants alarm" comes in. People who are not aware will call the police. We have a lot of work to do in this area."

    Regardless of whether the sheeple call the cops or not, it still doesn't warrant alarm and the City Attorney should know that and make sure the cops do too thru the new training bulletin. Otherwise the City attorney is not doing his job.

    The OP isn't claiming the city attny said that though. The OP very clearly says this is "his take" on the conversation he had with the city attny. I read the above as explaining why education is needed, so people aren't alarmed.

    I get 911 calls from people "alarmed" that someone is taking a picture of their house (happens all the time and is perfectly legal). People are in fact alarmed and either don't realize there is no need to be or just plain disagree and think it should be wrong to OC.

    Fact of life is, if we get a MWAG call, cops are going to be sent out. NOTHING wrong or illegal about that. Now what the cops do when they get there may become an issue, but they are going to be sent none the less. To get a call, not send cops because carrying a gun isn't illegal and then to have that person commit a crime would be derelict.

    You can't blame the city attny, mayor or anyone else for irrational people being freaked when theysee a gun. Sounds to me like the city attny is onthe same page, he understands it. The next step is to educate the public.

    Fetch, please clarify on this point. I hate to see someone being called a moron when they are on our side.
    It doesn't matter if the cops are sent because of a 911 call initiated by a sheeple. When the cops see no illegal activity, their job is actually done, because anything more than a social contact is actually illegal for the cops, that includes a Terry stop. So what's the problem if the cops are called? I still don't understand how you figure the City Attorney didn't plant the "warrants alarm" idea in the OP. Since anyone who's been here for any length of time knows better.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    It doesn't matter if the cops are sent because of a 911 call initiated by a sheeple. When the cops see no illegal activity, their job is actually done, because anything more than a social contact is actually illegal for the cops, that includes a Terry stop. So what's the problem if the cops are called? I still don't understand how you figure the City Attorney didn't plant the "warrants alarm" idea in the OP. Since anyone who's been here for any length of time knows better.
    I agree, nothing wrong with the cops going out, it is what they do when they get that may become a problem (ie-tell person it is illegal, sieze the gun, etc.).

    The point I am trying to make is I think you are blaming the city attny for merely pointing out that some people will be alarmed and call when they see a gun. Pointing that out as a possible (and even likely) reaction is not the same as saying such alarm is warranted or suggesting that if people call their complaint is legitimate.

    I read this as the attny agrees OC is legal but merely offered that people might call about it. Not as a threat or warning, but just as a "don't be surprised if it happens" thing. That is different than saying "Sure it's legal but if anyone calls, then I could try you for "warranting alarm"".

    I took the OP to mean, "I have clarified this with the city attny, now the next step is to educate the public". Not as "We have to educate the public otherwise the city attny is going to prosecute us".

    I still think you are reading into it....

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Does anyone know if RCW 9.41.270 has been rewritten because of the Casad case?
    Until the RCW 9.41.270 is rewritten, Casad or not, it will be that way in the Spokane Municipal Code, (SMC).
    From my understanding the Casad case can only come into play after a warrants alarm incident has happend.

    The SMC quotes the first paragraph of RCW 9.41.270 word for word. The city att was adamant about pointing out the wording in all of the first paragraph, not just the warrants alarm part, of RCW 9.41.270.

    The city att knows it is legal to OC on city owned property, parks, etc. because of RCW 9.41.290. Our conversation was that it falls on our sholders to not incur the unlawful circumstanses of RCW 9.41.270.

    This again brings us back to educating the people to the point that walking through a park OC'ing, no matter the time of year or event, does not cause alarm of any kind. OC'ing has to become a common sight.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    We should all quit arguing and get the main point across. What Fetch is saying is that we need to make OC as common as women carrying purses or men wearing pagers and cell phones on their belts. We all need to stop bickering and come together for the same cause and not get our panties in bunches because we all don't see eye to eye. We need to just stick together and come together so that our kids can OC and noone will give it a second glance.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    Does anyone know if RCW 9.41.270 has been rewritten because of the Casad case?
    Until the RCW 9.41.270 is rewritten, Casad or not, it will be that way in the Spokane Municipal Code, (SMC).
    From my understanding the Casad case can only come into play after a warrants alarm incident has happend.

    The SMC quotes the first paragraph of RCW 9.41.270 word for word. The city att was adamant about pointing out the wording in all of the first paragraph, not just the warrants alarm part, of RCW 9.41.270.

    The city att knows it is legal to OC on city owned property, parks, etc. because of RCW 9.41.290. Our conversation was that it falls on our sholders to not incur the unlawful circumstanses of RCW 9.41.270.

    This again brings us back to educating the people to the point that walking through a park OC'ing, no matter the time of year or event, does not cause alarm of any kind. OC'ing has to become a common sight.
    So clarify this point, did the city attny lead you to believe that he believes OC does "warrant" alarm?

    There are ALWAYS going to be those who are alarmed by something. The court will (has) decided whether it was "warranted". Is he say if people are alarmed it is warranted and so we have to educate people so they won't be alarmed, only then we are protected? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    I am "alarmed" by clowns, does that mean they are illegal?

    Now I am confused...

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    K_Bjornstad wrote:
    We should all quit arguing and get the main point across. What Fetch is saying is that we need to make OC as common as women carrying purses or men wearing pagers and cell phones on their belts. We all need to stop bickering and come together for the same cause and not get our panties in bunches because we all don't see eye to eye. We need to just stick together and come together so that our kids can OC and noone will give it a second glance.
    Agreed, but that doesn't mean that until we do we should be subject to arrest, etc.

    I think the only disagreement here is trying to understand what the city attny meant, whether someone "being" alarmed qualifies as "warrants" alarm as mentioned in 9.41.270 or was only saying "don't e surprised if someone calls".

    If he means anyone being alarmed is "warranted" then I am going to have to agree with bear. PLEASE don't make me do that!!!!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Thank you 911boss for the wording,

    "I think the only disagreement here is trying to understand what the city attny meant, whether someone "being" alarmed qualifies as "warrants" alarm as mentioned in 9.41.270 or was only saying "don't be surprised if someone calls".
    Yes, he knows merely OC'ing is not enough for warranting alarm, and was only trying to get across the "don't be surprised if someone calls" part. This was only the first meeting. We will have to see after the revised training bulletin is issued.

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
  •