OC on a bus, RAS? sterile carry!

imported post

We have achieved debate!!! assume the gun is loaded, is the 1st rule of firearm "safety", it is not a rule about guns on busses. terry needs more that assumptions. btw i think terry is a very weak protection of 4A, and its permiting of stop & frisk was based on weak RAS.

imported post

I agree police shouldn't make assumptions at all, should we make assumption that the LEO's are out to frame us with every encounter? Hmmm 2 way street?

Now though it is illegal to lie to police officers, if he finds another reason to detain you or is going to be a jerk and detain and search you anyway after you told him it isn't not loaded, and he finds it loaded, you are SOL. Make sure if you are going to test this that you are %100 above board.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

We have achieved debate!!! assume the gun is loaded, is the 1st rule of firearm "safety", it is not a rule about guns on busses. terry needs more that assumptions. btw i think terry is a very weak protection of 4A, and its permiting of stop & frisk was based on weak RAS.

Click to expand...

The "rule about guns on busses (sic)" is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

Click to expand...

The assume a gun is loaded is simply the "reasonable person" standard, and it's something which should be seen as an objective fact. When the objective facts show that a crime may be being committed, officers have a duty to investigate.

SVG - as far as I know, it's not illegal to lie to police officers. Doing so and getting caught doing can be damaging in court, but I don't think it's a violation unless you are under oath.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Ajetpilot wrote:

So, another question:

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say practicing medicine, can any LEO in the State of Washington demand to see his license without RAS or PC that a law is being broken?

Click to expand...

You keep using "perfectly legal activity" without qualifying. Do you have a point with this?

Click to expand...

Ajetpilot,
Practicing Medicine is not "a perfectly legal activity" without a license to do so issued by the state. Hell, any patient can request to see my license before I work on them.
If my license is not on the wall and he sees me practicing (trust me, sometimes it really is "practice" ) then he has RAS to ask for my license.

You are a pilot. You can be engaged in the perfectly legal activity of standing next to your plane and you know a LEO does not need RAS or PC to request to see your pilot license. You have to produce it at the request of any LEO or or FAA designated individual.
( I'll cite it if you really want me to)

Cheers,
Bill

imported post

Apparently, I've done a very poor job of adding to this debate. Sorry.

imported post

what the hell is "a reasonable person standard" , whats all this talk about lying to the cop?? and the questions about perfectly legal?? standing by a plane is legal and gives no ras for ahybody to see a license,,. ,,,, extra punctuation!!!! so what?,! the post was a question about ras,, im not sure i would even be obliged to answer any questions,,, lying is out of the question!! breaking the law was not in the question,,,everything is perfectly legal unless it is ilegal,,,.,,,., practicing medicin , standing by airplanes, or flying them,, riding on a bus, carrying a gun, even looking suspicious is legal,,, the question is RAS,,,, spenser made mention of visibly attached clip,,, but a gun in a holster isnt obviosly loaded or not,, if i talk to the cop?? telling i know the law,, got no cpl,, gun is not loaded,,, the absence of no other facts,,whats to give him pc to bug me at that point?? stand up for the 4thA,, the 2ndA aint worth having if you give up the 4th and 5th,,, and giving in to unreasonable intrusion,, or unlawful intrusion then your slippery slop will just get steeper

imported post

TADA! 2, 4, 5 A defendergets it. Thank you.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

TADA! 2, 4, 5 A defendergets it. Thank you.

Click to expand...

The only thing he gets is how to write in such a way that my inner dialogue begs for mercy before going on a bender that leaves me twitching for minutes...*drools while his brain aneurysms a bit more*... Okay, I'm back.

You both seem to be ignoring that the objective facts surrounding the bus situation does provide reasonable, articulable suspicion that the is or may be being broken. He talks about defending the 5th amendment, but ignores that anything you say can be used against you. Nothing you say can be used to exculpate you.

Saying "it's not loaded" means two things to an objective witness: jack and shit, but jack left town. As an objective observer, the only way I would ever accept it as such is if the slide is racked back such that I can see the chamber or having checked it by racking myself. You, as a reasonable gun owner, should hold the same standard, as it is the standard of gun safety and knowledge that is expected.

Look, I agree that some of the law is BS. I'm not sure how the driver's license law would stand up to inquiry. However, the loaded gun without a CPL doesn't appear to be on the face a violation. If you'd like to be the test case, go ahead, but at this point I think you're wrong.

NavyLT, that 1000 foot thing...depends. If it's a state officer than no, I wouldn't expect it (federal law). Moreover, even a federal officer would have to have a reasonable articulable suspicion the gun was substantially involved in commerce, whatever the flying f' that means.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

what the hell is "a reasonable person standard" ,  whats all this talk about lying to the cop?? and the questions about perfectly legal?? standing by a plane is legal and gives no ras for ahybody to see a license,,. ,,,, extra punctuation!!!! so what?,!  the post was a question about ras,, im not sure i would even be obliged to answer any questions,,, lying is out of the question!! breaking the law was not in the question,,,everything is perfectly legal unless it is ilegal,,,.,,,., practicing medicin , standing by airplanes, or flying them,, riding on a bus, carrying a gun, even looking suspicious is legal,,,  the question is RAS,,,,  spenser made mention of visibly attached clip,,, but a gun in a holster isnt obviosly loaded or not,, if i talk to the cop?? telling i know the law,, got no cpl,, gun is not loaded,,, the absence of no other facts,,whats to give him pc to bug me at that point?? stand up for the 4thA,, the 2ndA aint worth having if you give up the 4th and 5th,,, and giving in to unreasonable intrusion,, or unlawful intrusion then your slippery slop will just get steeper

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. The original post was about RAS. We all agree that OC is a "right". The laws stating that we have to have a permit to OC on a bus are certainly debatable, and the laws that we even have to have a CPL can be debated. But I felt Tawnos answered the question well with citable references regarding current law.

Where I jumped in and had a problem (ie: entered the debate!) was when Jetpilot started bringing up "perfectly legal" situations that have nothing to do with "rights". It's not about "missing the point".

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Practicing medicine is not a right, it is a privilege. Flying is not a right. It is a privilege.
When you consent to participate in a privilege, you consent to showing your license to engage in that privilege to whomever regulates that privilege. Thus my contention that those topics/activities have no place in this debate on 4th amendment and RAS issues.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are not familiar with the "reasonable person standard" that you study it. For many of us it is a fact of life that we have to keep in mind when doing our jobs, because it is one of the the primary criteria that a jury will judge us by if we completely screw the pooch, or someone even THINKS we screwed the pooch. I've had to justify to a jury that I met the reasonable person standard and been on the front page of every regional paper in the process. 'Taint fun

Last but not least, carrying sterile on the bus is an interesting mechanism to foster your debate on 4th amendment rights, but in the real world? No way........no how........not ever! :what:

Cheers,
Bill

imported post

that 1000ft from school is all calif,,, check 9.41.280, we are required to stay off school grounds and busses when OC w/o cpl.. with cpl weather OC or CC we can pick up and drop off a student, on the grounds, but not in the building..

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

that 1000ft from school is all calif,,, check 9.41.280,  we are required to stay off school  grounds and busses when OC w/o cpl..  with cpl weather OC or CC we can pick up and drop off a student, on the grounds, but not in the building..

Click to expand...

The 1000ft rule is federal, however they allow the states to override it.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

that 1000ft from school is all calif,,, check 9.41.280, we are required to stay off school grounds and busses when OC w/o cpl.. with cpl weather OC or CC we can pick up and drop off a student, on the grounds, but not in the building..

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

I didn't mention involvement in commerce for my health. It was the end run the GFSZ act used after being found unconstitutional in its initial formation.

imported post

i think ive hi-jacked my own thread!!! now im gettin tired and confused,, the reasonable person, a cop, would have to believe that a gun pointed at him is, loaded, maybe even a gun in a holster is too! so a gun on a bus could be ras to see the cpl, lacking a cpl could be ras to see its unloaded. as a youngster living in seattle i rode the bus alot, if i still lived there id be inclined to try this test out, there is no need to break any laws or get arrested...

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

i think ive hi-jacked my own thread!!! now im gettin tired and confused,, the reasonable person, a cop, would have to believe that a gun pointed at him is, loaded, maybe even a gun in a holster is too! so a gun on a bus could be ras to see the cpl, lacking a cpl could be ras to see its unloaded. as a youngster living in seattle i rode the bus alot, if i still lived there id be inclined to try this test out, there is no need to break any laws or get arrested...

Click to expand...

Not sure what being pointed at him has to do with anything. However, it seems you've pretty much gotten it. The gun on the bus is RAS for a CPL. No CPL is RAS to check if it is unloaded as you say.

imported post

i was just using the pointing gun as a bridge for a reasonable person to expect any gun is loaded, i think im agreeing with you on the legal outcome of this test case, but without the back and forth discusion i wouldnt be sure of my decission..thanx for participating

imported post

What's RAS stand for? Looked around and couldn't find anything.

imported post

hi new person it stands for "reasonable arguable susspicion",,OMG i kant spell nothin!!

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

hi new person it stands for "reasonable arguable susspicion",,OMG i kant spell nothin!!

Click to expand...

It actually stands for "reasonable articulable suspicion".

imported post

joeroket wrote:

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

hi new person it stands for "reasonable arguable susspicion",,OMG i kant spell nothin!!

Click to expand...

It actually stands for "reasonable articulable suspicion".

Click to expand...

Joe rocket has it; RAS is "reasonable, articulable suspicion" - a standard of law enforcement which is used in determining a search's compliance with the 4th amendment. If there is a suspicion of a crime that has just been or is about to be committed, that an objective, reasonable person observing the same set of circumstances would also state. Given such circumstances, and provided the officer observing this is capable of articulating why such circumstances are suspicious, a search and or seizure is not unreasonable without a warrant.

Examples of unreasonable suspicion is, by way of example only, "he was poorly dressed" or "he was a Chinese person in a primarily Mexican neighborhood." One that may be reasonable but is not articulable is "something about her gave me the chills and I felt that she was about to do something wrong." It may be reasonable to fear that the person was about to commit a crime, but if the reason why you feel that way cannot be articulated in a manner similar to Terry, where the officer stated something to the effect of "I saw them walk back and forth repeatedly, looking around, it was the same as other criminals that have cased places before robbing from them."

imported post

Ah, thanks. I got the R and the S, but the A was up in the air.