Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Close to home.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Just reaffirming why I carry a firearm. This happened 3 doors down from my house today while I was home. I just wish that CWU would let me CC on campus so I can start carrying on my way to and from school because this is ridiculous just goes to show you that no matter what size of town you live in be it Seattle or Ellensburg there is always a need for personal protection.

    http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2008/...3854936660.txt

  2. #2

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

    Post imported post

    And it reaffirms why I carry in my house...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Shy_Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    I wish that we could carry on WSU campus, today there was an attempted kidnapping ON CAMPUS. Apparently 4 guys tried to grab some dude and haul him into their rig, he managed to escape but that is not the point. With the latest string of assaults on campus and now this attempted kidnapping I don't understand why the university still insists on students being completely disarmed. We are not even allowed to have pepper spray or any other type of defensive "weapon." I am wondering what it will actually take before they change their minds on allowing students to protect themselves. I honestly am not looking forward to that day.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Shy_Panda wrote:
    I wish that we could carry on WSU campus, today there was an attempted kidnapping ON CAMPUS. Apparently 4 guys tried to grab some dude and haul him into their rig, he managed to escape but that is not the point. With the latest string of assaults on campus and now this attempted kidnapping I don't understand why the university still insists on students being completely disarmed. We are not even allowed to have pepper spray or any other type of defensive "weapon." I am wondering what it will actually take before they change their minds on allowing students to protect themselves. I honestly am not looking forward to that day.
    I have carried a pocket knife everyday for at least the last 10 years. That goes all the way back to the 8th grade for me. Every day of high school, every day at college... I always kept it as a tool, but it would certainly get the job done if necessary...

  5. #5
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Hmm, rules or not, I carry everywhere I physically can.......you can't say "Wow, I'm glad I didn't get in trouble for breaking the rules" when you're dead.........

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    Wow, the anti-gunners in the comments at that link are ridiculous.

    "Furthermore, if there was a problem on campus and it escalated, the heat of the moment could lead to that individual brandishing a weapon."

    Yes, that's the idea. If someone is trying to harm me, I'm going to brandish a weapon. If some idiot brandishes a weapon for any other reason, he will be arrested and go to jail - or shot by another student in self defense. What these people don't realize is that law abiding gun owners - that's the vast majority of us - don't go around "getting mad and brandishing weapons." People who do that quickly have their firearms rights stripped and if they continue, they go to jail for a good long time.

    "I think what people have to take into consideration is that often times the gun they carry for their own protection is used against them."

    This is a BS fallacy perpetuated by the anti-gun crowd. I'd like to see actual statistics on this. My bet is it rarely happens. Besides, if I want to take that chance, that's my business.

    Funny how they all want to force "Student" to reveal his name, and insinuate he's a criminal and a bad person for not doing so. He's only a "criminal" because the BS anti-gunners have made him one, forced him into a situation where adequate self defense is illegal. I wonder how many good, otherwise law abiding people ignore these rules?

    I posted:

    Some of these comments are hilarious. Do you really think your "No guns on campus" laws are effective in actually removing guns from campus? They aren't. If a bad guy wants to rob you, rape you, or just kill a bunch of you for sport, your silly rule isn't going to stop him. It baffles my mind why you people continue to believe a "no guns" law can stop a criminal. Hint: He's a CRIMINAL! He doesn't follow the rules and nothing you do or say will make him!!

    Law abiding people carrying guns of their own are the only effective means we have of stopping criminals in the act. Law abiding gun owners don't brandish their weapons in anger or threaten or intimidate others and guns don't just "go off" and "kill bystanders." A quarter of a million people hold concealed pistol licenses in Washington; you people are already surrounded by guns every day and you don't even know it. From some of the comments here you would think bad things would be happening every day. Hot-headed gun owners should be threatening people and brandishing left and right. Right? No, because people who take the time to obtain the legal permits and do this the right way are good people that we WANT to have carrying guns. Yes, even on campus. Strike that: ESPECIALLY on campus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    "I think what people have to take into consideration is that often times the gun they carry for their own protection is used against them." This is a BS fallacy perpetuated by the anti-gun crowd. I'd like to see actual statistics on this. My bet is it rarely happens. Besides, if I want to take that chance, that's my business.
    I totally agree with you there, if that happens to me it is my bussiness. And I wonder who this "Student" character is.......

  8. #8
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Hmm, they actually posted my comment.
    I carry all the time, in all places. Openly when I can, but concealed when I have to. Virginia Tech, Columbine, all these horrible mass shootings happened because of a ridiculous disparity of force. The one kid with a gun was able to kill multiple people, because there was nobody there willing to break "the rules" and protect themselves and others by carrying a firearm to even the odds. We have become a society of sheep, unwilling to defend ourselves from attack or wrongdoing. There is no sin in defending ones life or others from harm, and Americans used to realize this. Unfortunately for the victims of crime, we no longer have that ability for self reliance. I refuse to be a victim, and therefore I carry a weapon. I have never drawn that weapon, and I hope I never have to. But not being prepared is downright stupid; I don't keep my head in the clouds and refuse to see the world around me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    As many others (OP included) have pointed out already: No place, no matter how seemingly safe, is immune from violent crime. Our lives are potentially at risk anywhere we are, and that's why I carry 24/7 where it is lawful for me to do so.

    Sadly, as Panda points out below, it's not lawful in some places I go, and I am disarmed in those places.

    Shy_Panda wrote:
    I wish that we could carry on WSU campus, today there was an attempted kidnapping ON CAMPUS. Apparently 4 guys tried to grab some dude and haul him into their rig, he managed to escape but that is not the point. With the latest string of assaults on campus and now this attempted kidnapping I don't understand why the university still insists on students being completely disarmed. We are not even allowed to have pepper spray or any other type of defensive "weapon." I am wondering what it will actually take before they change their minds on allowing students to protect themselves. I honestly am not looking forward to that day.

    Too right! Even tiny little rural college towns have criminals. Sadly, a Washington state Attorney General upheld the WAC's thattrump the state constitution and RCW's in narrow cases such as college campuses long ago and that decision is not likely to be reversed.

    With WSU's current president and administration, a change to the WAC's for WSU are highly unlikely as well.

    Sadly, I have to rely on hand-to-hand means of defending my life on campus, if it ever comes to that, and I don't feel that's adequate in 4 vs 1 situations like you mentioned above.



    EDIT: Let's see if they post my comment as well.


  10. #10
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    WAC is not law, is it? I thought it was just the administrative rules for students on college campuses........the worst that could come from it would be expulsion from the college.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    WAC is not law, is it? I thought it was just the administrative rules for students on college campuses........the worst that could come from it would be expulsion from the college.
    that is true and they could probably get you for trespassing if you were a visitor and not a student because the WAC for CWU mentions both.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    tricityguy wrote:
    "I think what people have to take into consideration is that often times the gun they carry for their own protection is used against them."
    Yes this is a made up concern. The only time you need to worry about this is if you are a LEO. There still has not been a single confirmed report of a person open carrying having their weapon taken and used against them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    Has anyone, or any gun rights group, worked with attorneys to file lawsuits against entities that ban guns? I would like to see a coordinated effort to:

    1. Fight these regulations via letter-writing campaigns (Documentation).
    2. Sue the next time something happens that an armed citizen may have prevented.

    It is long since time we began holding state government and private companies and universities liable for their heavy handed refusal to allow us the right of self defense. If I am ever attacked, or even witness an attack that I could have stopped, while in a place that bans firearms, I can guarantee you I'd take my lawsuit as high as the courts would allow against the state. I simply cannot believe these people have gotten away with this for as long as they have.

    I cringe every time I step foot into a bar or a school and am forced to leave my sidearm in my vehicle. I hate it. I have, on many occasions, considered ignoring what I consider to be illegal and unconstitutional rules, but the penalty for doing so should I get caught is high. So I abide by the law and just hope nothing happens, like the rest of the sheep, even though I know damn well "gun free zones" have a higher incidence of problems.

    In regards to universities, I will carry (concealed) and ignore their rules, just as I ignore rules at private businesses and malls. However, in those places where state law says "no", I do abide because the state has the ability to take action against me far beyond asking me to leave.


  14. #14
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    WAC is not law, is it? I thought it was just the administrative rules for students on college campuses........the worst that could come from it would be expulsion from the college.
    The Office of the Attorney General of Washington State has issued an opinion on this very issue. SEE LINK HERE: AGO 1982 No. 14 - November 03, 1982



    The applicable highlights have been selected but I encourage you to read the entire AOG Opinion yourself. I have bold-faced the areas pertaining specifically to college campuses. In essence,the AOG upheld the WACs that prohibit firearms, including handguns, on private and public school campuses, including colleges andpost-secondary education institutions. This AOG ignores the pre-emption set forth in RCW 9.41.290 and uses the elementary and secondary school restrictions set forth in RCW 9.41.300as a basis for the opinion. Furthermore, the AOG ignored the Washington State Constitution and RCW 9.41.050.

    You can argue until you're blue in the face, but getting an AOG Opinion overturned is next to impossible. The long story short is that in this state, colleges can ban firearms and we have no recourse unless we want to challenge the AOG opinion and precedent.

    The worse that could come of it is the loss of firearm civil rights for the person convicted of carrying unlawfully on a college campus.

    [snip]

    3. May a municipality or county prohibit the possession of a fire‑arm on the grounds of elementary, secondary and post‑secondary campuses (public and private) located within their jurisdiction?

    We answer your first and second questions in the negative and your third question in the affirmative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.

    [snip]



    ANALYSIS


    [snip]


    Conclusion:



    It is our opinion, therefore, that a county or city ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms, including handguns, on public or private school grounds or college campuses within its territorial jurisdiction would be valid because such an ordinance (unlike those covered by your first two questions) wouldnot be in conflict with state law under the applicable, Bellingham v. Schampera, test as above described.

    [[Orig.Op.Page13]]

    This completes our consideration of your questions. It is hoped that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

    Very truly yours,
    KENNETH O. EIKENBERY
    Attorney General



    PHILIP H. AUSTIN
    Deputy Attorney General


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    WAC is not law, is it? I thought it was just the administrative rules for students on college campuses........the worst that could come from it would be expulsion from the college.
    The worse that could come of it is the loss of firearm civil rights for the person convicted of carrying unlawfully on a college campus.
    There would be no conviction based on a firearms violation. Colleges can enact a WAC but it is simply a rule and there is no criminal penalty other than refusing to leave the grounds when ordered to.

    Also there is no method for "overturning" an AGO opinion because it does not require it. An AG opinion carries no weight of law and is not binding on any party or court. It is simply his opinion and interpretation of the law.
    "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

  16. #16
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    The Office of the Attorney General of Washington State has issued an opinion on this very issue. SEE LINK HERE: AGO 1982 No. 14 - November 03, 1982

    The applicable highlights have been selected but I encourage you to read the entire AOG Opinion yourself. I have bold-faced the areas pertaining specifically to college campuses. In essence,the AOG upheld the WACs that prohibit firearms, including handguns, on private and public school campuses, including colleges andpost-secondary education institutions. This AOG ignores the pre-emption set forth in RCW 9.41.290 and uses the elementary and secondary school restrictions set forth in RCW 9.41.300as a basis for the opinion. Furthermore, the AOG ignored the Washington State Constitution and RCW 9.41.050.

    You can argue until you're blue in the face, but getting an AOG Opinion overturned is next to impossible. The long story short is that in this state, colleges can ban firearms and we have no recourse unless we want to challenge the AOG opinion and precedent.

    The worse that could come of it is the loss of firearm civil rights for the person convicted of carrying unlawfully on a college campus.
    You are citing an Attorney General's opinion from 1982. The laws you claim he is ignoring post-date that opinion. The lawshave changed since then. This opinion is outdated, superceded, and otherwise perempted. It's not merelypining for the fjords. It's a dead parrot.

    It has also been cited and refuted for these reasons on this forum before.


    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  17. #17
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    There would be no conviction based on a firearms violation. Colleges can enact a WAC but it is simply a rule and there is no criminal penalty other than refusing to leave the grounds when ordered to.

    Also there is no method for "overturning" an AGO opinion because it does not require it. An AG opinion carries no weight of law and is not binding on any party or court. It is simply his opinion and interpretation of the law.
    I believe you are sadly mistaken about an "opinion" of the Attorney General. The "opinion" of the AG is just as legallyvalid to Washington State Case Law as the "opinion" of a U.S. Attorney General applies to the U.S.C.

    Read this:(clickable link with applicable text italicized below)

    The Washington Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties.

    While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts.

    To discount the "opinion" of the AGO of Washington State as simply a guy's opinion is extremely foolish, unless you're absolutely certain that the Washington StateSupreme Court is going to bat for you. (Which is folly of the highest order.)

    Furthermore, I spoke to a Washington State Employee who enforces andapplies the WACon a daily basis as part of his job requirement and he informed me that for all legal purposes in his line of work the WAC isimplemented aslaw. Furthermore, the WAC is considered an enhancement and clarification of the RCW, just as the RCW enhances and clarifies the State Constitution.Washington State agenciesalso have policies, procedures, and guidelines that are subordinate to and originate from the WAC. Therefore, Stateoffices relyheavily on the WAC and seldom refer to (or need to refer to) the RCW for clarification. In essence, in his office, the WAC is their operating law.

    With that in mind, discouting the WAC as simply some administrative code with no legal bearing for punitive effect is very foolish. A firearm related WAC violation on campus willalmost certainlybe considered an RCW violation for unlawful carry on a school campus, despite the lack of "weapons free zone" signs and despite the fact that it's not a K-12.


  18. #18
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:

    You are citing an Attorney General's opinion from 1982. The laws you claim he is ignoring post-date that opinion. The lawshave changed since then. This opinion is outdated, superceded, and otherwise perempted. It's not merelypining for the fjords. It's a dead parrot.

    It has also been cited and refuted for these reasons on this forum before.



    Cite your source. I want to know the truth.


    The date on an AG's Opinion is irrelevant. The most recent legal precedent is the precedent. If the laws have indeed changed, as you noted (but didn't cite) then it is for the courts to decide if the old precedent is still relevant. We are laymen here, not justices;to assume that a 26 year old opinion is irrelevant or thatnew laws have superceded the AG Opinion I cited is very risky, unless they speak directly to the old opinion in the new opinion. (which AG's definitely do)

    The precedent set in 1982 is that municipalities could restrict firearms on school grounds (and college campuses whether public or private) because it was not in conflict with existing laws. Although we now have RCWs specifically forbidding firearms on elementary and secondary school campuses for students and teachers alike, the heart of the matter is that restricting on college campuses by municipalities was OK with the state.

    Now, that municipality can no longer prohibit firearms on college campuses. However, the state (WACs are state codes) can and does in the WAC and this opinion is still relevant because it states that such college campus restrictions by municipalities were in keeping with the RCW in 1982. Even though they no longer are, the state is not going to tell itself that it's not in keeping with its own laws.

    Furthermore,if you are referring tothe new AG Opinion (AGO No. 8 - October 13, 2008) (clickable link) which addresses firearm preemption specifically, you are still incorrect. This AGO applies only to cities, towns, and counties or other municipalitieswhere the State of Washingtonfully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state.

    The State of Washington isnot preempting itself. The WAC's arenot local municipality rules, they areState codes and as such Agenciesfollow the WAC to enforce the RCWs. (In layman's terms theState Agenciesapply the WAC as law.)The State doesn't preempt itself. Therefore, the AGO I cited from 1982 still applies as it specifically allows firearm regulation on post-secondary campuses and the WAC concerning firearmshas not been repealed.

    If you can cite the legal authority that specifically speaks to firearm regulations and their relationship with the WAC and college campuses I'll be more than happy to admit that I'm incorrect and will pleased to find that the WAC has no authority on college campuses statewide.

    Until such authority is cited, one can only assume that afirearm violation on campus and subsequent WAC disciplinary action will be handled as a violation of state law and thus becomes a firearm related crime. One would be wise not to risk their "civil firearms rights" in the hopes of a State Supreme Court decision in their favor.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    There would be no conviction based on a firearms violation. Colleges can enact a WAC but it is simply a rule and there is no criminal penalty other than refusing to leave the grounds when ordered to.

    Also there is no method for "overturning" an AGO opinion because it does not require it. An AG opinion carries no weight of law and is not binding on any party or court. It is simply his opinion and interpretation of the law.
    I believe you are sadly mistaken about an "opinion" of the Attorney General. The "opinion" of the AG is just as legallyvalid to Washington State Case Law as the "opinion" of a U.S. Attorney General applies to the U.S.C.

    Read this: (clickable link with applicable text italicized below)

    The Washington Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties.

    While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts.

    To discount the "opinion" of the AGO of Washington State as simply a guy's opinion is extremely foolish, unless you're absolutely certain that the Washington StateSupreme Court is going to bat for you. (Which is folly of the highest order.)

    Furthermore, I spoke to a Washington State Employee who enforces andapplies the WACon a daily basis as part of his job requirement and he informed me that for all legal purposes in his line of work the WAC isimplemented aslaw. Furthermore, the WAC is considered an enhancement and clarification of the RCW, just as the RCW enhances and clarifies the State Constitution.Washington State agenciesalso have policies, procedures, and guidelines that are subordinate to and originate from the WAC. Therefore, Stateoffices relyheavily on the WAC and seldom refer to (or need to refer to) the RCW for clarification. In essence, in his office, the WAC is their operating law.

    With that in mind, discouting the WAC as simply some administrative code with no legal bearing for punitive effect is very foolish. A firearm related WAC violation on campus willalmost certainlybe considered an RCW violation for unlawful carry on a school campus, despite the lack of "weapons free zone" signs and despite the fact that it's not a K-12.
    The AG opinion is not legally binding. I said it once and your post backed me up. Having great weight and being given great respect is far from being legally binding.

    Secondly I said that the WAC, remember the one we are talking about is created by the colleges, has no criminal penalty, I did not say they do not have punitive damages. College WAC's, which are the ones that ban firearms, are created by the colleges not Washington State.
    "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

Posting Permissions

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