What is the process

imported post

what is the process for getting a law put on the "books" that clearly defines the legality of OC'ing? I know I could look up the information, but thought I would just be lazy and also see if there were reasons for and against such an idea.



one would think that a clearer law would solve all the problems. and even though its already legal, and one would also think they shouldnt have to do such a thing. Wouldnt it just be better for the "movement" to work towards getting the law clarified or a very clear law passed?



its friday for me, I am whiped out tired. I think my brain is swelling lol. My eyes feel like they are going to pop out of my head and my head feels like it will explode. actually typing this has increased the pain in my head lol



that is all



"carry on lazily"

imported post

Laws take away your rights, they don't give them to you. What you're asking is that a bunch of politicians in a room get together and expand the law. The result of that, likely, will be a restriction of your rights, not an expansion.

imported post

Not all laws take away your Rights

for example, when a person reaches the age of 21 they can apply for a concealled carry permit. A new 21 year old can now leagally buy beer at the store.

There are others Laws that grant specific Rights. What I have seen and have been reading, not only here, is there is a HUGE issue with what the Law means to the common person. Its obvious that depending on the LEO, store manager, etc., that the Law can be read to mean "a person can not brandish or show or openly carry a pistol" We know that is not what the law means. We also know that the portion of the Law "warrants alarm" does not mean a person is offended by the sight of a gun on my hip, therefore they can complain to management and I get kicked out.

However, if a group of people were attempting to clarify a Law, or have a new Law voted on by the people of the State. What is there to be afraid of? Losing a Right that seems to have many problems associated to it that instead of OC, I just simply wear a jacket or carry a smaller gun (they all throw lead).

Worst case is that the State would make the Law to read "no openly carried pistol". That would be ideal actually, that could possibly lead to the Supreme Court ruling on the issue. And the Supreme Court has recently made some very positive gun law decisions (ie, Washington DC).

imported post

for example, when a person reaches the age of 21 they can apply for a concealled carry permit. A new 21 year old can now leagally buy beer at the store.

Click to expand...

Actually, those laws are not giving you rights, nor expanding them. They are restricting the rights of those not in the groups specified. (Under 21 yoa)

Our legal system is based on permissiveness. Meaning that if something is not expressly illegal, then it is allowed and legal.

Those two examples you mention are really just saying when we are "allowed" to do something according to the state.

I understand what you are getting at with codifying open carry. However, I don't think anyone would like the outcome of such legislation.

imported post

You can legally do anything you want . . . except what the law says you CANNOT do.

For example, the law does not allow 21-year-olds to buy beer; it RESTRICTS those under 21 from buying it.

Hence the legality of open-carry, since there is no law restricting it.

EDIT: Darn you EOD, beat me by seconds . . . .

imported post

"...or have a new Law voted on by the people of the State."

Click to expand...

The "people of the State" don't vote on new laws. Our elected officials do, often without regard to what the people say they want.

imported post

Thank you both, EOD and Mad, you made my point, its all about the language and how it is read and understood.



You both say that the drinking at age at 21 does not grant a Right, instead it restricts. Actually both are true.

But when I am 20 years old and 1 day away from turning 21 it was looked at "I will have the Right to buy beer". Not, "I am no longer restricted".

How about when you were 15, and you were working on learning to drive, did you view it as a "restriction being lifted" or finally "I have the right to legally drive"

I looked at it as the legal right to drive, which I would argue everyone else did too.



As to how laws are changed or created, there are all kinds of initiatives that have been started by citizens and put into Law. The one example that comes to mind is the initiative to change how much we pay for licensing our vehicles. It used to be based on value, but there was a citizen based initiative enacted and now we pay $35.00 (around that amount) to license our vehicles.



But I am going to read up on it and let you know the process



My head is hurting really bad now.

imported post

Actually that is very incorrect. Below is a quick outline of citizens rights to enact law

This can be found at ballotpedia.org



Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

Citizens of Washington can use the initiative process to:

• Directly enact a new state law. In Washington, this is known as an Initiative to the People.
• Indirectly propose a new state law. This is known as an Initiative to the Legislature.
• Through veto referendum, nullify a law enacted by the Washington State Legislature. These are known as Referendum Measures.

A fourth way, not involving direct democracy, that a ballot measure can be placed on the statewide ballot in Washington is through the process of legislative referral. These are known as Referendum Bills. They are proposed laws or constitutional amendments that the legislature chooses to place before the voters on the ballot.

Washington voters are not permitted the right to initiate constitutional amendments through a direct democracy process.

This article focuses on general issues of I&R law. For more information on getting an initiative on the ballot, see also Procedures for qualifying an initiative in Washington.
Initiative to the People is certified (sufficient signatures have been filed and certified as valid), it is placed on the next state general election ballot for voter approval.
Initiative to the Legislature is certified (sufficient signatures have been filed and certified as valid), it is submitted to the Legislature at its next regular session in January. The Legislature must take one of the following three actions:

• (a) adopt the initiative as proposed, in which case it becomes law;
• (b) reject or refuse to act on the proposed initiative, in which case the initiative must be placed on the ballot at the next state general election; or
• (c) approve an alternative to the proposed initiative, in which case both the original proposal and the Legislature's alternative must be placed on the ballot at the next state general election.

This continues but I simply wanted to make my point and correct the error.

imported post

hawaidvr9 wrote:

But when I am 20 years old and 1 day away from turning 21 it was looked at "I will have the Right to buy beer". Not, "I am no longer restricted".

How about when you were 15, and you were working on learning to drive, did you view it as a "restriction being lifted" or finally "I have the right to legally drive"

I looked at it as the legal right to drive, which I would argue everyone else did too.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the general perception is that the law 'gives' us the right to drink at 21, drive at the appropriate age, etc.

However, I still believe that the opposite is true (laws take away rights), in spite of the perception.

imported post

Rights are God given. The things you are looking at, driver license, drinking age etc are privileges

imported post

This is from Oregon's 166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms[/b]

(2) This section does not prohibit: (3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.




I think something like this added to 9.41.270 would do nicely for the purposes. I think it should be expanded to any holster, or just openly carried in general.

imported post

I understand where you are coming from Hawaiidiver, you want to gaurantee your rights like the constitution is supposed to. I think though if you get politicians invovled things won't go in our favor in this political climate. Unless there were laws worded against those who want to take away or infringe upon our rights or harass us for use of our rights, I would be more for taking more laws off the books than adding to them.