Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: "Discharge" vs. Possession

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    I try to be very careful and meticulous in my own research bothof the information posted here and within the WAC and RCW'sso I don't wasteanyone's time with my questions....

    But nowhere do I see how I should deal with this problem/Catch-22 of being able to carry (as provided by state preemption), but not being able to use my tool of self defense (firearm inmy case) when it is within the city, county or municipality's discretion, and ability,to regulate/prevent the discharge of same.

    Am I missing something or have they found a way to emasculate those of us who choose to carry for personal defense?:

    As in: "Sure you can carry here. Fine. But don't think about discharging that thing, regardless of the reason, or we'll use the full force of the law, as authorized, to tack you to a wall, Mister! -- that's why we have police!"

    If this has been discussed at length before in this forum, and I missed it, please accept my apologies in advance and point me to the right thread.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Your life, the life of loved ones or innocents vs. Class 3 Misdemeanor? I choose the ticket/30 days in jail, and truly that's only if the prosecutor is a gigantic ass. I doubt there is a jury that would convict on that.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    p2a1x7 wrote:
    Since it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the park, would you get arrested/cited for discharging a firearm in self-defense?
    RCW 9a.16.110;

    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    That's one way of looking at it Nebulis01 -- thanks for taking the time to respond.

    So let's follow your reasoning. The state says I can possess, with only a few restrictions on location, anywhere (publicly owned, held or managed areas). But they give the cities, counties and municipalities the right to regulate the discharge of firearms. Naturally, they all say "yes" to possession, to be in alignment with state law, but "no" to the discharge of firearms.

    You say, well, if I had to protect my family, I'd break the law. Fine.

    My life and liberty; family and belief inmy inalienable rightsto be upheld without infringementtranscend the idiocy, deliberate confusion and obstacles of current laws. Does that mean that we ALL can disregard the law in persuit of our rights to protect ourselves, our rights, and our families?

    Thus far, Open Carriers and Concealed Carriers alike have shown themselves to be proud, but also law-abiding citizens. Should we go down the road you suggest, the efforts of these citizens to make legal headway toward the achievment of a better America would be severely compromised. To me, THAT is not an option. I love my family, yes. But I love my God, my country and all of our liberty and freedom more.

    For those with the same sentiments,let's return to my question, shall we... (initial post)

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'm not a legal expert, but I'm betting acting in self-defense is a defense to a discharge citation.

    Besides, if you do shoot at a person in self-defense, there are possibly much more serious charges to worry about. Assault, malicious wounding, involuntary manslaughter, murder.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Edwall, Washington, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    The same section that allows City's, Town's and county's to ban the discharge of weapons in certain areas also addresses the catch 22 you talk about.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300



    RCW 9.41.300 section 2 A.

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    NOW we're talking, p2a1x7!

    Thanks for that great pluck from the many and diverse RCW's that impose themselves on our natural freedoms (and all for the sake of job security, and something "to do", for those that make them!)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Well said, Citizen.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    VonKonig wrote:
    That's one way of looking at it Nebulis01 -- thanks for taking the time to respond.

    So let's follow your reasoning. The state says I can possess, with only a few restrictions on location, anywhere (publicly owned, held or managed areas). But they give the cities, counties and municipalities the right to regulate the discharge of firearms. Naturally, they all say "yes" to possession, to be in alignment with state law, but "no" to the discharge of firearms.

    You say, well, if I had to protect my family, I'd break the law. Fine.

    My life and liberty; family and belief inmy inalienable rightsto be upheld without infringementtranscend the idiocy, deliberate confusion and obstacles of current laws. Does that mean that we ALL can disregard the law in persuit of our rights to protect ourselves, our rights, and our families?

    Thus far, Open Carriers and Concealed Carriers alike have shown themselves to be proud, but also law-abiding citizens. Should we go down the road you suggest, the efforts of these citizens to make legal headway toward the achievment of a better America would be severely compromised. To me, THAT is not an option. I love my family, yes. But I love my God, my country and all of our liberty and freedom more.

    For those with the same sentiments,let's return to my question, shall we... (initial post)
    To clarify the issue at hand:

    RCW 9a.16.110;

    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.


    For purposes of discussion:

    "My life and liberty; family and belief inmy inalienable rights" Which i concur with, and will defend all as such. I don't believe we have the 'right' to a quiet park, we might very well have an expectation and there is letter of law laid down to agree with that. I don't know if that makes any sense, but i'm a little weird.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Thanks all for your help on this issue. I think RCW 9a.16.110 stands as a good, legal justification for discharging our firearms (in self defense), when "discharging" would otherwise be made illegal by city, county and municipal leeches ... I mean, bureaucrats.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    VonKonig wrote:
    Thanks all for your help on this issue. I think RCW 9a.16.110 stands as a good, legal justification for discharging our firearms (in self defense), when "discharging" would otherwise be made illegal by city, county and municipal leeches ... I mean, bureaucrats.
    It is not a legal justification. It is a limitation put on the municipalities. Basically if the municipality finds that you acted in self defense they are barred by the state from pursuing other criminal charges that could be the result of discharging a firearm.

    If you are found to have fire and it is not justified then they can stack all the charges they want on you.
    "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

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    Doctrine of Necessity

    Allows one to break the law when following the law would cause a greater harm than breaking it.

    It is the doctrine that allows one to cross into the other lane if a 3 year old child is in your lane of traffic. In this instance, the greater harm would be your death, so breaking the city ordinance would be allowed.

Posting Permissions

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