I know about the forum rules, but there have been mentions of Spencer several times, and people seem to forget that Spencer was all about the carrying of a RIFLE, not the handgun he had legally concealed. The court noted that he was legally carrying the pistol and didn't seem to even shrug at that.
If we are going to chat up Spencer regarding Open Carry, keep in perspective what Spencer was openly carrying.
Casad is the same situation. He was toting long guns.
Unless someone is either going to/from a hunt, or in the process of using an assault rifle or shotgun to defend themselves or their home, carrying a long gun while out and about on the town makes about as much sense as driving a garbage truck to and from the office.
While I might have a good chuckle at that, I'd still consider it a bit fruitloopy. Nevertheless, I'd defend someone's
right to do so.
Nevertheless, I share your concerns that if people cannot behave responsibly, or insist on behaving outrageously, the well-intentioned but overcontrolling left will enact legislation which mandates responsible behavior. Just look at the myriads of laws out there already prohibiting various actions.
Packing a handgun in a responsible manner (and there's no guidelines on what exactly defines that) does not seem to get much attention from the courts. That's as it should be.
The courts generally accept a properly holstered firearm as carrying it in an acceptable manner.
But...and there's that word, again...if people here want to start pushing the envelope with their mode of carry, their behavior, even their clothing, eventually someone is going to cross that imaginary line and the result could be a court precedent that affects everyone. Best to keep that in perspective.
That would be wise, particularly as court precedents are notoriously difficult to overturn.
Now, about the other Vancouver case. We're talking about 10 p.m.
I would argue a prudent individual would be exercising better judgement to carry it late at night than at 10am in the morning.
...pretty empty parking lot of a mall shopping area in which all the stores were closed...
I would argue a prudent indvidual would be exercising better judgement to carry it in a deserted area of town than inside a mall with a moderate crowd.
...it is SNOWING (when it would seem to me that a prudent person just "might" want to cover up his expensive handgun to protect it from the weather)
Who cares what the weather is like? I carry when it's raining and snowing. If I'll be out in the rain or snow for any length of time I'll cover it up, but not in the few seconds it takes me to walk from my car to the nearest overhang.
...and this is happening outside of a pizza joint that had recently been the target of a robber.
Even if this fact were widely known, and even if the individual in question knew it,
it is immaterial. In fact, the south Colorado Springs IHOP was robbed at gunpoint last year, so I organized an open carry meet there shortly thereafter
in support of them! The owner/manager was very appreciative of our support, and even cut us 15% off on our meals!
The thread on that caper has sort of wound up presently with a discussion about the value or liability of appearing "confrontational" and some of you guys better pay attention to that because the court of public opinion is a nasty environment, and it is pretty easy to lose there. All you need to do is be bluster-stupid. Just once. For even just a moment.
You're stating we're the problem, yet we're not. In fact, you stated the real problem: "the court of public opinion," and by inference, "the court of the Police Department."
PD's aren't courts. They exist to enforce the laws that are written, not to invent laws themselves, or even interpret existing laws in ways that suits them whenever they feel like it.
I used to live in the State of Washington. I know the laws there, and when it comes to firearms rights, they haven't changed much. Here's a brief summary:
"Washington State follows British legal tradition, which states that anything that is not proscribed as unlawful is lawful. So the real question is; where can you NOT carry in Washington ? There are four main state statutes that one must be cognizant of: RCW 9.41.050 (Carrying Firearms), RCW 9.41.280 (Carry on School Grounds), RCW 9.41.300 (Weapons Prohibited in Certain Places), and RCW 70.108.150 (Firearms in Outdoor Music Festivals). It is your responsibility to read and understand the definitions and exceptions in the law. RCW RCW 9.41.050 is the primary law which affects gun carrying on a day to day basis. This law makes it unlawful for one to conceal a pistol without a concealed pistol license (hereinafter called CPL), and also makes it unlawful for one to carry a loaded pistol in any vehicle, whether it be openly carried or concealed carried unless a person has a valid CPL(see RCW 9.41.060 on Exceptions)."
From what I gather, Mr. Watson was citing for openly carrying a firearm, an act which is LEGAL. How the jury found him guilty for violating a law which does not exist is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Attitude and demeanor have a great deal to do with how any encounter with a police officer or sheriff's deputy is going to turn out. It's called, in police parlance, the "attitude test."
I challenge you to find that term in any single one of our 50 States' laws. If you can't, then you have mentioned a second area where a policeman is making up a law as he or she sees fit, and
that is illegal.
I support a respectful, cooperative attitude, while standing quietly firm on one's rights.
Keep in mind, I write about this stuff a lot, and deal with all kinds of people who have run into trouble with the law over some gun-related problem. I really hate writing about or dealing with some poor guy who screwed up from the get-go, but on the other hand, I don't have much sympathy for them, either.
Sounds to me like you're giving the LEO the benefit of the doubt, but not the individual who was wrongly charged and convicted. It certainly wasn't a jury of his peers, for if we'd been on the jury, we would have sided with the law, not the law enforcement officer or the DA's passionate presentation which apparently swayed the jury from doing their duty to acquit the guy of a charge which isn't even lawful.[/quOTE]
The reason the Vancouver policeman told him to "cover it up" is the same reason a Vail policeman will tell you to cover it up. They're both tourist towns, and they don't want any firearms showing, as that can scare off a small percentage of the visitors.
Was it either right or legal for that policeman to do so?
No, it was not. Neither is it right for you to come on here and tell us we need to bend to the "court of public opinion" when what needs to happen is for all of us to carry in accordance with the law, in a responsible, professional manner, and for the "court of public opinion" to be re-educated as to what is, and is not legal.
