FunkTrooper
Regular Member
imported post
sempercarry wrote:
sempercarry wrote:
Yeah sorry bout that I know it doesn't apply I just like saying it.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Denied entrance to Pierce county building
- Thread starter sempercarry
- Start date
MarlboroLts5150
Regular Member
imported post
A couple of things before I start. US Navy, MMW1(SS) (Torpedoman), qualified Range Master, RSO (Range Safety Officer), and SAMI( Small Arms Marksmanship Instructor).
This post got me curious, and I just wanted to point a few things out from general knowledge. I don't live in WA, but I do understand most of the laws there.
Stating that you were on official business while in civvies would raise a HUGE RED FLAG with just about anyone, even if you have the proper ID. That being said, I have also conducted official assignments in civvies. The difference is the clothes, and the job itself. Just about every state has an exemption for military personnel being armed while performing official duties. In most cases that would also require you to be in uniform. Let me re-phrase that, most people would expect you to be in uniform. And the job itself would dictate if you were required to be armed, ie escorting arms, ammo, explosives, etc. Setting up a training schedule with a civilian LE unit would not require you to be armed.
The State of WA allows open and concealed carry by law. Say, for example, if you were stationed at MCBH in Hawaii, walking around in civvies armed, while performing official duties or not, you'd be sitting in jail, because of the laws here. It wouldn't matter a bit if your CO gave you permission or not.
Just my experienced opinion, but there are 2 things against you here bro...
1) Your job at that time did not require you to be armed.
2) The only way you could carry concealed while performing an official assignment would be if you are a MilitaryInvestigator, which I'm gathering you're not.
If I was the guard, I wouldn't have let you in either.....just saying.
Semper Fi brother.
A couple of things before I start. US Navy, MMW1(SS) (Torpedoman), qualified Range Master, RSO (Range Safety Officer), and SAMI( Small Arms Marksmanship Instructor).
This post got me curious, and I just wanted to point a few things out from general knowledge. I don't live in WA, but I do understand most of the laws there.
Stating that you were on official business while in civvies would raise a HUGE RED FLAG with just about anyone, even if you have the proper ID. That being said, I have also conducted official assignments in civvies. The difference is the clothes, and the job itself. Just about every state has an exemption for military personnel being armed while performing official duties. In most cases that would also require you to be in uniform. Let me re-phrase that, most people would expect you to be in uniform. And the job itself would dictate if you were required to be armed, ie escorting arms, ammo, explosives, etc. Setting up a training schedule with a civilian LE unit would not require you to be armed.
The State of WA allows open and concealed carry by law. Say, for example, if you were stationed at MCBH in Hawaii, walking around in civvies armed, while performing official duties or not, you'd be sitting in jail, because of the laws here. It wouldn't matter a bit if your CO gave you permission or not.
Just my experienced opinion, but there are 2 things against you here bro...
1) Your job at that time did not require you to be armed.
2) The only way you could carry concealed while performing an official assignment would be if you are a MilitaryInvestigator, which I'm gathering you're not.
If I was the guard, I wouldn't have let you in either.....just saying.
Semper Fi brother.
DocWest8404
Regular Member
imported post
Sempercarry, Quick Question. What is your background. Military and Civilian.
Sempercarry, Quick Question. What is your background. Military and Civilian.
deanf
Regular Member
imported post
You are putting things in the RCW that are not there. Your analysis relies on facts which do not exist.
You are putting things in the RCW that are not there. Your analysis relies on facts which do not exist.
Johnny Law
Regular Member
imported post
The point here is that ANYONE walking into the County City Bldg. saying he's military and on official duties, doesn't mean crap. Any Military personnel could do/say that, and there is almost no way to verify it. I am not disputing the fact thatSempercarry was there legitimately, but it makes no difference; no card, no weapons. The Military doesn't get to make the rules off post, and he is considered a civilian off post.
The point here is that ANYONE walking into the County City Bldg. saying he's military and on official duties, doesn't mean crap. Any Military personnel could do/say that, and there is almost no way to verify it. I am not disputing the fact thatSempercarry was there legitimately, but it makes no difference; no card, no weapons. The Military doesn't get to make the rules off post, and he is considered a civilian off post.
imported post
deanf wrote:
no. My analysis relies on military regulations. The military would tell sempercarry that he was outside the scope of his official duties if he was carrying his personally owned firearm. Thus he would no longer be acting in offfial capacity according to the military. Since he would be outside of his official capacity, he would no longer fall under the rcw for exemption to 9.41.300. You may not think this is relevant. But it absolutely is to draw the distinction between someone who is on duty and someone running an official errand off duty.
Further, as stated above, a reasonable person would expect a Marine to be in uniform if performing an official duty, not carrying a firearm concealed.
Sempercarry, I suggest filing a complaint if you are not allowed to carry, but without a uniform or written orders, I would expect their reaction to Be the same. It seems more than reasonable to me; you have no reason to demand to be armed. You are asking for their assistance training your unit, but don't want to show up in uniform or bring an official request? Let's flip this, would you allow a pc deputy to carry on base out of uniform? According to military regs, your answer better be no.
deanf wrote:
no. My analysis relies on military regulations. The military would tell sempercarry that he was outside the scope of his official duties if he was carrying his personally owned firearm. Thus he would no longer be acting in offfial capacity according to the military. Since he would be outside of his official capacity, he would no longer fall under the rcw for exemption to 9.41.300. You may not think this is relevant. But it absolutely is to draw the distinction between someone who is on duty and someone running an official errand off duty.
Further, as stated above, a reasonable person would expect a Marine to be in uniform if performing an official duty, not carrying a firearm concealed.
Sempercarry, I suggest filing a complaint if you are not allowed to carry, but without a uniform or written orders, I would expect their reaction to Be the same. It seems more than reasonable to me; you have no reason to demand to be armed. You are asking for their assistance training your unit, but don't want to show up in uniform or bring an official request? Let's flip this, would you allow a pc deputy to carry on base out of uniform? According to military regs, your answer better be no.
olypendrew
Regular Member
imported post
Johnny Law wrote:
The military isn't trying to "make the rules," as I understand things. The "rule" was made by the WA legislature.
Really, it seems like it comes down to a question of proof. The security personnel are probably not going to simply accept the word of every man with a high and tight haircut that the man is on official duty. However, if things were cleared at a command level, and the guards were expecting sempercarry to show up because one of his higher-ups discussed it with one of the guards higher-ups, then there might not be a problem, and sempercarry, or someone else similarly situated, might be allowed to remain armed inside the secured zone.
If sempercarry was caught/found somewhere where average citizens are not allowed to be armed, he could probably defend gainst the criminal charges by proving that he was on duty, etc. But that's different than being allowed entry in the first instance.
So, next time, maybe someone could call ahead?
Johnny Law wrote:
The military isn't trying to "make the rules," as I understand things. The "rule" was made by the WA legislature.
Really, it seems like it comes down to a question of proof. The security personnel are probably not going to simply accept the word of every man with a high and tight haircut that the man is on official duty. However, if things were cleared at a command level, and the guards were expecting sempercarry to show up because one of his higher-ups discussed it with one of the guards higher-ups, then there might not be a problem, and sempercarry, or someone else similarly situated, might be allowed to remain armed inside the secured zone.
If sempercarry was caught/found somewhere where average citizens are not allowed to be armed, he could probably defend gainst the criminal charges by proving that he was on duty, etc. But that's different than being allowed entry in the first instance.
So, next time, maybe someone could call ahead?
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
sempercarry wrote:
sempercarry wrote:
excuse me? When on official military business and utilities are the uniform of the day, they most certainly are authorized to wear them off base in direct travel to their designated place of business and then back to the base.
sempercarry
Regular Member
imported post
No actually Marines cannot wear their utilitys off base. Here is the ALMAR
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/PAGES/07%20ALMARS.htm
I just discussed this matter with my platoon commander. He says that he didn't know that the sheriff was in a secure building and that if he had know he would have told me not to go armed. That being said, we agreed that I was in the right and still should have been able to enter and that the sheriff was not disputing that I was on official duty, rather that there was no exemption in the RCW which there obviously is. Back to the uniform thing. The appropriate uniform would have been service charlies but as I said before we do not have dress holsters to go with any of our dress or service uniforms. Exceptions toSOPare made all the time, like today. I will be returning but, as per my PC, unarmed.....just to ensure the mission is accomplished.
No actually Marines cannot wear their utilitys off base. Here is the ALMAR
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/PAGES/07%20ALMARS.htm
I just discussed this matter with my platoon commander. He says that he didn't know that the sheriff was in a secure building and that if he had know he would have told me not to go armed. That being said, we agreed that I was in the right and still should have been able to enter and that the sheriff was not disputing that I was on official duty, rather that there was no exemption in the RCW which there obviously is. Back to the uniform thing. The appropriate uniform would have been service charlies but as I said before we do not have dress holsters to go with any of our dress or service uniforms. Exceptions toSOPare made all the time, like today. I will be returning but, as per my PC, unarmed.....just to ensure the mission is accomplished.