Seattle Weekly Article on OpenCarry

Dave Workman · May 27, 2009

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

I thought your quote was fine Dave I think people misread this bit

The movement itself is a small segment of the gun-rights community. And some of them can be in your face about it,

Click to expand...

I believe they mistook you for implying that OCers can be in your face about it. I read it as though you were implying that the rest of the gun-rights community can be up in our face about it.

Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you are mistaken, "sort of."
Some OC people can be "in your face" about this, regardless how they may portray an encounter in this forum. We should be honest enough to acknowledge that without getting wrapped around the axle.

I've seen it a couple of times, and I've had a couple of people complain to me about it. That's not good, no matter how one views his own conduct, it's how THE OTHER people view your conduct that ultimately counts when it comes to getting one's point across, if a point is to be made.

I don't personally view OC as a mechanism for "making a point." It is supposed to be a mechanism for carrying a defensive sidearm and nothing more.

As I've stated elsewhere, if someone wants to make a statement, carry a sign or write a letter to the editor.

amlevin · May 27, 2009

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Now, one person's "mouthy" is another's "attempt to educate."
It's an attitude thing, and you do not want to flunk the attitude test.

I usually find that the difference between the two is a matter of Volume and Civility. If one uses a normal voice and is polite, there is less tendency for an Officer to feel he has to "take control of the situation". For some reason, the louder an argument gets, the less one is able to hear.

Dave Workman · May 27, 2009

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Dave Workman wrote:

Now, one person's "mouthy" is another's "attempt to educate."
It's an attitude thing, and you do not want to flunk the attitude test.

Click to expand...

I usually find that the difference between the two is a matter of Volume and Civility. If one uses a normal voice and is polite, there is less tendency for an Officer to feel he has to "take control of the situation". For some reason, the louder an argument gets, the less one is able to hear.

Amen!

FMCDH · May 27, 2009

imported post

I thought it was very well balanced and even touched on the entire idea of why the OC movement exists without implying that those of us who choose to OC are attempting to push anything on anyone.

I personally think their is a balance to be struck between OC and CC and each person has to decide that for themselves. I personally make that decision based upon climate and crowd conditions.

In my way of thinking, its idiotic to insist on CCing under a coat while enjoying a nice summer day in a park while you sit and have to sweat to death, just the same as I think its idiotic to insist on OCing from outside a winter coat in the freezing rain and snow where it might make the firearm inoperable anyway, but I don't think EITHER of these things should be illegal in any way.

Washington is a great state for firearms owners and carriers, and its only getting better. I don't want that jeopardized by either the CC elitists or OC fanatics that don't understand there is a time and place for both prudence of action and expression of freedom.

Dave, keep on keepin on!

Everyone else "Carry On!"

jarhead1911A · May 27, 2009

imported post

"As a person who is a gay man, I have an aversion to being in the closet about anything," Peterson says. When in Seattle, he doesn't want to worry about getting assaulted just because he and his partner are holding hands. "There are attacking thugs going into Capitol Hill to bash gays, and police are only there to mop up after the fact."

Hey Lonnie What the hell man??? everytime you open your mouth your agenda leaks out once again. I am not Anti-Gay by a long shot but none the less keep your agenda on capital hill as it has nothing todo with OC.

As far as Dave Workman goes ya i have to say dude you @#$% the bed on this one. IF people are going to have an agenda then lets make it 1 agenda not 6 different ones.
I remember reading awhile back about Pierce said that no one could speak about OCDO except him or i think it was mike.

I jumped him about it as well because people have agenda's and people seem to think that they can just say whatever they want because they own a domain name. Well this is bad we ALL are going to get slammed for this article so instead of getting the facts out to the public we ended and when i say "we" i am talking about a couple of people in question so the article looks like we are a bunch of gay gun carrying in your face cowboys.

As far as i am concerned this article is a complete disaster and we are 10 steps back from where we were before people had to open there mouths and let there personal agenda's fall out.

I am curious what Bear45/70 would have to say about all of this???? Maybe we will be lucky and he will chime in.

TBC

amlevin · May 27, 2009

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

I don't want that jeopardized by either the CC elitists or OC fanatics that don't understand there is a time and place for both prudence of action and expression of freedom.

Both principles that make this country great. One needs to practice them both, not just the second.

Mike · May 27, 2009

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

As far as i am concerned this article is a complete disaster and we are 10 steps back from where we were before people had to open there mouths and let there personal agenda's fall out.

Besides the fact that almost all publicity is good publicity, I thought this article was pretty balanced and let us get a lot of good points in with essentially no opposition, serving notice to many more people that open carry is going main stream and appeals to discrete and insular minorities such as gays as well.

Carry On!

sv_libertarian · May 27, 2009

imported post

What in the name of all that is unholy are you foaming at the mouth over now Marc?

Do you realize who a sizeable portion of Seattle Weekly's market is? It would umm be oh yah GAY PEOPLE? So having an openly queer OC'r highlighted in the article and highlighting his sexual preference is a Good Thing. It's called marketing and producing a product that appeals to your market share. Yano queers, liberals, etc... Libs and gays are probably two of the three or four main driving market segments of SW.

But hey, I'm only a media salesman so what do I know?

jarhead1911A · May 27, 2009

imported post

NO Steve its called AGENDA i have an agenda but i dont run everyone into the ground over it either, With that being said i am not foaming at the mouth over this i am expressing my dissapointment with the "I'm GAY treat me special" agenda as usual here is a good one "Dont ASK Dont TELL" policy it works well for the 2 million people in the armed forces maybe some people should practice that.

Gays are not special despite some peoples thoughts on this and i am not going to sit back and let some people show boat about it, Hey i am a combat vet did 4 tours but you dont see me rubbing in every chance i get now do you?

So sit back on your bath toy or go kick some hippies into the sound but let the grown-ups deal with this one.

Lante · May 27, 2009

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote

I jumped him about it as well because people have agenda's and people seem to think that they can just say whatever they want because they own a domain name. Well this is bad we ALL are going to get slammed for this article so instead of getting the facts out to the public we ended and when i say "we" i am talking about a couple of people in question so the article looks like we are a bunch of gay gun carrying in your face cowboys.

As far as i am concerned this article is a complete disaster and we are 10 steps back from where we were before people had to open there mouths and let there personal agenda's fall out.

I am curious what Bear45/70 would have to say about all of this???? Maybe we will be lucky and he will chime in.

TBC

I don't think we will get slammed for this article. Remember the readership of the Seattle Weekly - urban, younger and liberal. Peterson's quote may assist some of these readers to not see the OC'r in Seattle as a political enemy or a lost redneck.

Always remember *who* the article is aimed at.

joeroket · May 27, 2009

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

"As a person who is a gay man, I have an aversion to being in the closet about anything," Peterson says. When in Seattle, he doesn't want to worry about getting assaulted just because he and his partner are holding hands. "There are attacking thugs going into Capitol Hill to bash gays, and police are only there to mop up after the fact."

Hey Lonnie What the hell man??? everytime you open your mouth your agenda leaks out once again. I am not Anti-Gay by a long shot but none the less keep your agenda on capital hill as it has nothing todo with OC.

As far as Dave Workman goes ya i have to say dude you @#$% the bed on this one. IF people are going to have an agenda then lets make it 1 agenda not 6 different ones.
I remember reading awhile back about Pierce said that no one could speak about OCDO except him or i think it was mike.

I jumped him about it as well because people have agenda's and people seem to think that they can just say whatever they want because they own a domain name. Well this is bad we ALL are going to get slammed for this article so instead of getting the facts out to the public we ended and when i say "we" i am talking about a couple of people in question so the article looks like we are a bunch of gay gun carrying in your face cowboys.

As far as i am concerned this article is a complete disaster and we are 10 steps back from where we were before people had to open there mouths and let there personal agenda's fall out.

I am curious what Bear45/70 would have to say about all of this???? Maybe we will be lucky and he will chime in.

TBC

Edited because apparently my comments came out differently than intended.

joeroket · May 27, 2009

imported post

Lante wrote:

jarhead1055 wrote

I jumped him about it as well because people have agenda's and people seem to think that they can just say whatever they want because they own a domain name. Well this is bad we ALL are going to get slammed for this article so instead of getting the facts out to the public we ended and when i say "we" i am talking about a couple of people in question so the article looks like we are a bunch of gay gun carrying in your face cowboys.

As far as i am concerned this article is a complete disaster and we are 10 steps back from where we were before people had to open there mouths and let there personal agenda's fall out.

I am curious what Bear45/70 would have to say about all of this???? Maybe we will be lucky and he will chime in.

TBC

Click to expand...

I don't think we will get slammed for this article. Remember the readership of the Seattle Weekly - urban, younger and liberal. Peterson's quote may assist some of these readers to not see the OC'r in Seattle as a political enemy or a lost redneck.

Always remember *who* the article is aimed at.

It certainly was not aimed at gays. It was aimed at the people who do not realize that it is completely lawful to openly carry a firearm in this state.

Gray Peterson · May 28, 2009

imported post

Don got some of the basic facts wrong, or confused with others he was interviewing. Considering his form of note taking, I am not surprised. I have sent him an email so that he can correct his story, but it is my understanding is that reporters are rarely able to correct stories. I am hopeful that we may be able to catch the errors before printing.

jarhead1055 wrote:

NO Steve its called AGENDA i have an agenda but i dont run everyone into the ground over it either, With that being said i am not foaming at the mouth over this i am expressing my dissapointment with the "I'm GAY treat me special" agenda as usual here is a good one "Dont ASK Dont TELL" policy it works well for the 2 million people in the armed forces maybe some people should practice that.

Gays are not special despite some peoples thoughts on this and i am not going to sit back and let some people show boat about it, Hey i am a combat vet did 4 tours but you dont see me rubbing in every chance i get now do you?

Yeah, "Jarhead", you're not rubbing in your Marine status every time you post either. :quirky

Gray Peterson · May 28, 2009

imported post

double tap

sudden valley gunner · May 28, 2009

imported post

I know Dave is a freind of King county's sherrif. But Dave I would have to disagree with you on this. I am not for a police state were the police have the right to stop and disarm a person lawfully going about there business. His comments made it sound like they have the right to do so and it also seemed to encourage those who want to call Police to disarm those of us carrying a pistol.

I personally am going to try not carrying I.D. on me. The only reason I obtained a cpl was for driving. I am going to start leaving my CPL and licsence in the car when I am legally open carrying my weapon. If I get stopped bythe police and they decide to take my weapon away for there safety. How am I to retrieve it back? How are they going to know I am the registered owner? (besides the fact that unregistered guns aren't illegal here)They have no right to keep what is not theirs without probable cause.

It is harrasment and they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit if they set a pattern of this type of behavior against law abiding citizens.Some members of this forum have done lots of hard work to get most departments in this state up to date on this and to issue training bulletins. Is Urquart and his department going to continue to ignore this?

Other than that I did get what you were saying in the article. I have freinds who are gun owners who do feel the way you stated. I don't let that stop me though and I continue to excercise my right before it is stolen away from us.

Faceplant · May 28, 2009

imported post

I do agree with what you have to say about leaving your CPL in the vehicle but I would not recommend getting out of your vehicle or leaving your home without your I.D. on your person. As I understand it may be unlawful to not have your I.D. on your person anywhere but IN your home.

The way it was explained to me was that if you are going out of your front door to get the morning paper in your bathrobe and LEO stops and asks for I.D. you are supposed to have it on your person. If you do not have the requested I.D. you can be subject to a fine because you cannot prove who you are.

Please, keep in mind this was told to me MANY years ago by a Seattle police officer and it may have changed or of course been completely untrue.

Gray Peterson · May 28, 2009

imported post

Faceplant wrote:

I do agree with what you have to say about leaving your CPL in the vehicle but I would not recommend getting out of your vehicle or leaving your home without your I.D. on your person. As I understand it may be unlawful to not have your I.D. on your person anywhere but IN your home.

The way it was explained to me was that if you are going out of your front door to get the morning paper in your bathrobe and LEO stops and asks for I.D. you are supposed to have it on your person. If you do not have the requested I.D. you can be subject to a fine because you cannot prove who you are.

Please, keep in mind this was told to me MANY years ago by a Seattle police officer and it may have changed or of course been completely untrue.

Untrue is the word. The only time you are required to have a drivers license is when you drive. If you're walking about, that's a different story. Remember, folks, we have Article 1, section 7 of our state constitution, which is a stronger privacy provision than the 4th amendment. Look up "Stop and Identify".

Gray Peterson · May 28, 2009

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

I jumped him about it as well because people have agenda's and people seem to think that they can just say whatever they want because they own a domain name. Well this is bad we ALL are going to get slammed for this article so instead of getting the facts out to the public we ended and when i say "we" i am talking about a couple of people in question so the article looks like we are a bunch of gay gun carrying in your face cowboys.

Awwww, what's wrong, Marc? Are you so insecure in your own heterosexuality that you think people will think you're gay if any one of us are? :quirky

Dr. Fresh · May 28, 2009

imported post

Lonnie was simply stating his reasons for OCing. I don't see the problem. He never said only gay people OC, or that protecting yourself from violent bigots is the only reason for OCing. He simply told the reporter his personal reason for carrying.

Dave Workman · May 28, 2009

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I know Dave is a freind of King county's sherrif. But Dave I would have to disagree with you on this. I am not for a police state were the police have the right to stop and disarm a person lawfully going about there business. His comments made it sound like they have the right to do so and it also seemed to encourage those who want to call Police to disarm those of us carrying a pistol.

My personal friendship with the King County sheriff has nothing to do with this, trust me.

You can certainly disagree with me, but all I am here is the messenger. Police responding to a "man with a gun" call can take the firearm from the individual upon contact while they go about sorting things out. That's been upheld in court.

I don't necessarily agree with that, althogh in the event somebody is acting like a whack job, that's probably the prudent course

There is a considerable amount of officer discretion involved in these things, and no two are entirely alike. Lots of times, the officer will just suggest that you don't touch it.

One of those "If you don't, I won't" things" but, alas, they can do it, and there's nothing we can do about it even if we disagree all day long.

Seattle Weekly Article on OpenCarry

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

State Researcher

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member