Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Pending trial for gun crime leads to siezure of all guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Looking at RCW, it appears that if you're carrying a weapon, and you're CURRENTLY on bail or released on your own recognizance, pending trial, that they can TAKE any firearm you may be carrying, and ORDER it to be forfeited.

    W T F.

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    So if I get charged with a BS crime, because I won't back down when an officer sees me OC'ing, I am no longer allowed to carry a weapon until that charge is dropped?

    Again, I ask, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    Does such a law not violate our rights?



    RCW 9.41.098
    Forfeiture of firearms — Disposition — Confiscation.


    (1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:

    (a) Found concealed on a person not authorized by RCW 9.41.060 or 9.41.070 to carry a concealed pistol: PROVIDED, That it is an absolute defense to forfeiture if the person possessed a valid Washington concealed pistol license within the preceding two years and has not become ineligible for a concealed pistol license in the interim. Before the firearm may be returned, the person must pay the past due renewal fee and the current renewal fee;

    (b) Commercially sold to any person without an application as required by RCW 9.41.090;

    (c) In the possession of a person prohibited from possessing the firearm under RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045;

    (d) In the possession or under the control of a person at the time the person committed or was arrested for committing a felony or committing a nonfelony crime in which a firearm was used or displayed;

    (e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;

    (f) In the possession of a person free on bail or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a felony or for a nonfelony crime in which a firearm was used or displayed, except that violations of Title 77 RCW shall not result in forfeiture under this section;

    (g) In the possession of a person found to have been mentally incompetent while in possession of a firearm when apprehended or who is thereafter committed pursuant to chapter 10.77 or 71.05 RCW;

    (h) Used or displayed by a person in the violation of a proper written order of a court of general jurisdiction; or

    (i) Used in the commission of a felony or of a nonfelony crime in which a firearm was used or displayed.

    (2) Upon order of forfeiture, the court in its discretion may order destruction of any forfeited firearm. A court may temporarily retain forfeited firearms needed for evidence.

    (a) Except as provided in (b), (c), and (d) of this subsection, firearms that are: (i) Judicially forfeited and no longer needed for evidence; or (ii) forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010 or 63.40.010; may be disposed of in any manner determined by the local legislative authority. Any proceeds of an auction or trade may be retained by the legislative authority. This subsection (2)(a) applies only to firearms that come into the possession of the law enforcement agency after June 30, 1993.

    By midnight, June 30, 1993, every law enforcement agency shall prepare an inventory, under oath, of every firearm that has been judicially forfeited, has been seized and may be subject to judicial forfeiture, or that has been, or may be, forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.32.010 or 63.40.010.

    (b) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, of the inventoried firearms a law enforcement agency shall destroy illegal firearms, may retain a maximum of ten percent of legal forfeited firearms for agency use, and shall either:

    (i) Comply with the provisions for the auction of firearms in RCW 9.41.098 that were in effect immediately preceding May 7, 1993; or

    (ii) Trade, auction, or arrange for the auction of, rifles and shotguns. In addition, the law enforcement agency shall either trade, auction, or arrange for the auction of, short firearms, or shall pay a fee of twenty-five dollars to the state treasurer for every short firearm neither auctioned nor traded, to a maximum of fifty thousand dollars. The fees shall be accompanied by an inventory, under oath, of every short firearm listed in the inventory required by (a) of this subsection, that has been neither traded nor auctioned. The state treasurer shall credit the fees to the firearms range account established in RCW 79A.25.210. All trades or auctions of firearms under this subsection shall be to licensed dealers. Proceeds of any auction less costs, including actual costs of storage and sale, shall be forwarded to the firearms range account established in RCW 79A.25.210.

    (c) Antique firearms and firearms recognized as curios, relics, and firearms of particular historical significance by the United States treasury department *bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are exempt from destruction and shall be disposed of by auction or trade to licensed dealers.

    (d) Firearms in the possession of the Washington state patrol on or after May 7, 1993, that are judicially forfeited and no longer needed for evidence, or forfeited due to a failure to make a claim under RCW 63.35.020, must be disposed of as follows: (i) Firearms illegal for any person to possess must be destroyed; (ii) the Washington state patrol may retain a maximum of ten percent of legal firearms for agency use; and (iii) all other legal firearms must be auctioned or traded to licensed dealers. The Washington state patrol may retain any proceeds of an auction or trade.

    (3) The court shall order the firearm returned to the owner upon a showing that there is no probable cause to believe a violation of subsection (1) of this section existed or the firearm was stolen from the owner or the owner neither had knowledge of nor consented to the act or omission involving the firearm which resulted in its forfeiture.

    (4) A law enforcement officer of the state or of any county or municipality may confiscate a firearm found to be in the possession of a person under circumstances specified in subsection (1) of this section. After confiscation, the firearm shall not be surrendered except: (a) To the prosecuting attorney for use in subsequent legal proceedings; (b) for disposition according to an order of a court having jurisdiction as provided in subsection (1) of this section; or (c) to the owner if the proceedings are dismissed or as directed in subsection (3) of this section.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    It could be unconstitutional. It has yet, at least to my knowledge, be challenged as such.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    "Funny, I gave ALL my guns to my wife about a week ago as a March 7th present. Even documented it here. I am no longer a gun owner."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    "Funny, I gave ALL my guns to my wife about a week ago as a March 7th present. Even documented it here. I am no longer a gun owner."
    Court cases have ruled that even with the above argument you are still in possession if they are in the house you reside in and have access to them.

    Remember the law is possession, not ownership.

    How's that for ridiculous. Your spouses right to keep and bear arms are restricted because you live with her/him.
    "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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    What's more ridiculous is when you have a man and woman who are married and the man is a US citizen while the woman is not. Even though the man has every legal right to own and possess firearms, the woman does not without a AFL. Which then forces the woman to get one just so her husband can possess them because if he were to have firearms in the house, then technically the wife is in possession too!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    jchen012 wrote:
    What's more ridiculous is when you have a man and woman who are married and the man is a US citizen while the woman is not. Even though the man has every legal right to own and possess firearms, the woman does not without a AFL. Which then forces the woman to get one just so her husband can possess them because if he were to have firearms in the house, then technically the wife is in possession too!
    Oh man. I didn't even think of that one. We need to get this changed so that there is an exemption for spouses of non-citizens to be able to keep firearms in their homes with no restrictions so that they can keep them the same as the rest of us.

    Good call.
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    "Funny, I gave ALL my guns to my wife about a week ago as a March 7th present. Even documented it here. I am no longer a gun owner."
    Court cases have ruled that even with the above argument you are still in possession if they are in the house you reside in and have access to them.

    Remember the law is possession, not ownership.

    How's that for ridiculous. Your spouses right to keep and bear arms are restricted because you live with her/him.
    Do you have a citation for this? I rented a room to a fellow that wasn't allowed to own guns due to an old domestic violence conviction. I looked into whether my firearms collection would be a problem and my research indicated that it wasn't a problem.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    "Funny, I gave ALL my guns to my wife about a week ago as a March 7th present. Even documented it here. I am no longer a gun owner."
    Court cases have ruled that even with the above argument you are still in possession if they are in the house you reside in and have access to them.

    Remember the law is possession, not ownership.

    How's that for ridiculous. Your spouses right to keep and bear arms are restricted because you live with her/him.
    Do you have a citation for this? I rented a room to a fellow that wasn't allowed to own guns due to an old domestic violence conviction. I looked into whether my firearms collection would be a problem and my research indicated that it wasn't a problem.
    I'll see if I can dig it up again.
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote: Do you have a citation for this? I rented a room to a fellow that wasn't allowed to own guns due to an old domestic violence conviction. I looked into whether my firearms collection would be a problem and my research indicated that it wasn't a problem.

    This is because you were renting the room and he had no legal right to enter anymore without your permission. I heard this similar question on Guntalk a couple weeks ago and a fed prosecutor answered it. If you owned the property with the other person, then it is a problem.

    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    "Funny, I gave ALL my guns to my wife about a week ago as a March 7th present. Even documented it here. I am no longer a gun owner."
    Court cases have ruled that even with the above argument you are still in possession if they are in the house you reside in and have access to them.

    Remember the law is possession, not ownership.

    How's that for ridiculous. Your spouses right to keep and bear arms are restricted because you live with her/him.
    Do you have a citation for this? I rented a room to a fellow that wasn't allowed to own guns due to an old domestic violence conviction. I looked into whether my firearms collection would be a problem and my research indicated that it wasn't a problem.
    Aarrgh, I can't find the case I want, but if you google "Constructive Firearm Possession" you will see the requirements that need to be met. There are ways of protecting yourself and the person whom is not allowed to possess a firearm. Typically it would be a safe where only you have the combo or key, but in a spousal scenario it would be easy, I think, to convince a jury that the spouse had constructive possession of the firearm.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    jchen012 wrote:
    What's more ridiculous is when you have a man and woman who are married and the man is a US citizen while the woman is not. Even though the man has every legal right to own and possess firearms, the woman does not without a AFL. Which then forces the woman to get one just so her husband can possess them because if he were to have firearms in the house, then technically the wife is in possession too!
    Are you kidding me??? I had no idea. My wife is Chinese here on a permanent 10 year visa.

    But I can tell you, it's a BS law and it will never stand a court challenge. I'll not get rid of my guns just because my wife isn't yet a US Citizen.

    That is a law that is in need of changing if it really exists. I'll look for it. If anyone finds it before me, please post it here. Then, when I get some time, I'll write the State Attorney General and challenge the Constitutionality of the law.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  12. #12
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    jchen012 wrote:
    What's more ridiculous is when you have a man and woman who are married and the man is a US citizen while the woman is not. Even though the man has every legal right to own and possess firearms, the woman does not without a AFL. Which then forces the woman to get one just so her husband can possess them because if he were to have firearms in the house, then technically the wife is in possession too!
    +1

    Makes my blood boil.


    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Are you kidding me??? I had no idea. My wife is Chinese here on a permanent 10 year visa.

    But I can tell you, it's a BS law and it will never stand a court challenge. I'll not get rid of my guns just because my wife isn't yet a US Citizen.

    That is a law that is in need of changing if it really exists. I'll look for it. If anyone finds it before me, please post it here. Then, when I get some time, I'll write the State Attorney General and challenge the Constitutionality of the law.
    It really does exist. You also realize that it was impossible to get one for the past year or two (this changed about 2 months ago)? I believe there are currently two bills being considered to change the AFL requirement for certain classes of immigrants only.

    RCW 9.41.170Alien's license to carry firearms — Exception.
    (1) It is a class C felony for any person who is not a citizen of the United States to carry or possess any firearm, without first having obtained an alien firearm license from the director of licensing.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.170

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    jchen012 wrote:
    What's more ridiculous is when you have a man and woman who are married and the man is a US citizen while the woman is not. Even though the man has every legal right to own and possess firearms, the woman does not without a AFL. Which then forces the woman to get one just so her husband can possess them because if he were to have firearms in the house, then technically the wife is in possession too!
    Are you kidding me??? I had no idea. My wife is Chinese here on a permanent 10 year visa.

    But I can tell you, it's a BS law and it will never stand a court challenge. I'll not get rid of my guns just because my wife isn't yet a US Citizen.

    That is a law that is in need of changing if it really exists. I'll look for it. If anyone finds it before me, please post it here. Then, when I get some time, I'll write the State Attorney General and challenge the Constitutionality of the law.
    I agree it is unconstitutional. Unfortunately the AG will basically tell you to pound sand. Can you challenge a law without having first been arrested for violation?

    On a side note what in the world is a permanent 10 year visa? It just sounds kinda goofy that a permanent visa is only good for 10 years.
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    jchen012 wrote:
    What's more ridiculous is when you have a man and woman who are married and the man is a US citizen while the woman is not. Even though the man has every legal right to own and possess firearms, the woman does not without a AFL. Which then forces the woman to get one just so her husband can possess them because if he were to have firearms in the house, then technically the wife is in possession too!
    Are you kidding me??? I had no idea. My wife is Chinese here on a permanent 10 year visa.

    But I can tell you, it's a BS law and it will never stand a court challenge. I'll not get rid of my guns just because my wife isn't yet a US Citizen.

    That is a law that is in need of changing if it really exists. I'll look for it. If anyone finds it before me, please post it here. Then, when I get some time, I'll write the State Attorney General and challenge the Constitutionality of the law.
    I agree it is unconstitutional. Unfortunately the AG will basically tell you to pound sand. Can you challenge a law without having first been arrested for violation?

    On a side note what in the world is a permanent 10 year visa? It just sounds kinda goofy that a permanent visa is only good for 10 years.
    Just means that she'll be expected to either extend the visa at that time or take the citizen test.

    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

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

    Post imported post

    Ok. Thanks for the answer.
    "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
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Last week I was notified by a King County deputy that an anti-harassment petition was entered against me by a former client and that I would not be allowed to possess a firearm while the order was in effect. I was never served and the petition was either thrown out by the judge or the former client retracted the petition. This former client thought that a poem my 12 year old daughter wrote to her was actually written by me and had veiled threats hidden inside. This woman acted against the better advice of people around her who realized she was being paranoid from either drug use or perhaps from guilt and fear of legal action for me possibly suing her in the future for breach of contract.(which I wasn't planning on nor ever insinuated)

    What concerns me is that in most cases I hear that the judges will act on the side of caution and allow the petition to become an order and that they are in place for two weeks before a hearing that can extend them up to a year. The deputy on the other end of the phone behaved like a complete ******* and threatened me with arrest if I had any contact with her or family or friends even though I WAS NEVER SERVED. When he told me about the no weapons bit, he asked me if I had a problem with complying with that after he heard my chuckle. I explained to him that I was a weapons designer and that several governments besides our own make it a point for me to be armed. Luckily the judge most likely laughed in her face when this woman presented a poem that my daughter wrote to her as evidence. Still bothers me that some drug addicted prim a dona can infringe on my rights so easily by paying $65 and sobbing to a judge.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Solar wrote:
    Last week I was notified by a King County deputy that an anti-harassment petition was entered against me by a former client and that I would not be allowed to possess a firearm while the order was in effect. I was never served and the petition was either thrown out by the judge or the former client retracted the petition. This former client thought that a poem my 12 year old daughter wrote to her was actually written by me and had veiled threats hidden inside. This woman acted against the better advice of people around her who realized she was being paranoid from either drug use or perhaps from guilt and fear of legal action for me possibly suing her in the future for breach of contract.(which I wasn't planning on nor ever insinuated)

    What concerns me is that in most cases I hear that the judges will act on the side of caution and allow the petition to become an order and that they are in place for two weeks before a hearing that can extend them up to a year. The deputy on the other end of the phone behaved like a complete ******* and threatened me with arrest if I had any contact with her or family or friends even though I WAS NEVER SERVED. When he told me about the no weapons bit, he asked me if I had a problem with complying with that after he heard my chuckle. I explained to him that I was a weapons designer and that several governments besides our own make it a point for me to be armed. Luckily the judge most likely laughed in her face when this woman presented a poem that my daughter wrote to her as evidence. Still bothers me that some drug addicted prim a dona can infringe on my rights so easily by paying $65 and sobbing to a judge.

    Our opponents wake up in the morning on the attack. They reject the Constitution and evade it day in and day out. They reject the founding principles and evade them day in and day out. They want to recreate our society in an image that our Founding Fathers would be up in arms against. That is what we're up against. They no more respect the constitution than they respect any person with conservative values. They believe we are mentally ill and must be institutionalized. I know this because my liberal family members have actually suggested that I am sick and need professional help. What triggered that was me saying that no one was above the Constitution, and that Barack Obama was violating the Constitution rather than upholding it when he began singling out AIG employees as that attack violated our equal protections clause.

    These peopleare statists and are extremely manipulative, they will deceive everyone by stating outright lies as truth and when anyone calls them on their lies, they'll obfuscate all counter arguments and bamboozle those who are not really paying attention into believing their lies. If one only listens to bits and pieces of these statist’s arguments, you might be persuaded by their passion. However, listen to all their arguments and they’ll not make much sense at all.

    They are after every one of our guns. My mother believes no one should have a gun and will vote for anyone who promises to make gun ownership illegal. In fact, all of my liberal relatives think this way. They think that the right to bear arms is outdated and unneeded as our government will protect us now. Our gun rights are very much in danger, and we need to be more serious about protecting them. Not just by exercising our rights, but by getting re-involved in education. It is liberals that are dominating schools, and they all teach that guns are bad, that conservatives are racist, bigoted, homophobic chauvinists who hate anything fair and are the descendants of slave owners. They use demonization to justify taking away our guns. I was called a racist by old liberal friends and family because I didn’t vote for Obama. A racist who is married to a Chinese woman and has a black sister in law who he loves dearly, and yet I am a racist and they believe their lies.

    They wake up every day and know what they want to see achieved. Many of them are activists. Instead of picnics and other peaceful weekend outings, these people join activist groups seeking the destruction of our Constitution through statutes and ordinances. What they call death by a 1000 cuts. As far as I am concerned, it is working so far. Look at how far they have eroded our right to bear arms. The US Constitution clearly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They infringe on our right to keep and bear arms every single day. The fact that they are telling you that you could not have guns while they sorted things out is a direct violation of this basic right. The words “Shall not be infringed” are powerful and unchangable, and yet too many gun owners just roll over for the anti-gunners. The 2nd Amendment does not give the government any leeway on this by giving them and exception clause. There is no exception clause and yet they continuously infringe on this right because too many Americans are apathetic to their Constitutional Rights. So the political class sees this and begin to infringe on other rights as well and soon, our Constitution will be no more valid than a Comic book for protections.

    What people are doing here is a good first step, but it needs to be a part of a bigger movement. Unfortunately, most people say "I don't have the time" or "I just care about this issue" and so, our rights are chipped away at every single day by the relentless barrage of attacks by the statists (read modern liberal).

    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    How's that for ridiculous. Your spouses right to keep and bear arms are restricted because you live with her/him.
    I can forsee that as the key to it being unconstitutional.
    For one, it restricts the constitutional rights of an innocent party, without due process.
    Two, since we are innocent until proven guilty, due process is violated again.

    I would like to see the case law on this though. I'm sure after digging through the legal databases at the library I can find something to overrule it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    (e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;
    I'm not sure I understand this. Since this is an open carry state, the only places a CPL is required are stadiums that have opted to ban weapons, when dropping off our kids at school, etc.
    If it said "under circumstances," that's different, but "in any place?" I see a defense!



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    I think that the key is the crime involved. It states that the crime has to be one " in which a firearm was used or displayed." Now, of course, that's how I read it, but I'm not a politician with an agenda either. However, I would think that any decent 2a attorney would be able to spot that and fight on the person's behalf based on the fact that the person has not been proven guilty as long as he or she was not using the weapon to harrass or intimidate.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    scarlett1125 wrote:
    I think that the key is the crime involved. It states that the crime has to be one " in which a firearm was used or displayed." Now, of course, that's how I read it, but I'm not a politician with an agenda either. However, I would think that any decent 2a attorney would be able to spot that and fight on the person's behalf based on the fact that the person has not been proven guilty as long as he or she was not using the weapon to harrass or intimidate.
    The OP's whole point is based off the fact that he would be open carrying. In that case the firearm would be displayed. If the reporting party says that you motioned towards your firearm then it certainly would fall under the statute. The sad thing is that the only reason they would know you are carrying is because it is visible, not applicable to the crime but visible during the so called crime.
    "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

  22. #22
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    scarlett1125 wrote:
    I think that the key is the crime involved. It states that the crime has to be one " in which a firearm was used or displayed." Now, of course, that's how I read it, but I'm not a politician with an agenda either. However, I would think that any decent 2a attorney would be able to spot that and fight on the person's behalf based on the fact that the person has not been proven guilty as long as he or she was not using the weapon to harrass or intimidate.
    The OP's whole point is based off the fact that he would be open carrying. In that case the firearm would be displayed. If the reporting* party says that you motioned towards your firearm then it certainly would fall under the statute. The sad thing is that the only reason they would know you are carrying is because it is visible, not applicable to the crime but visible during the so called crime.
    Exactly.. Or some idiot charges you with a violation for merely oc'ing because he wants to push his own agenda. It'd be a violation with a gun displayed.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

Posting Permissions

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