Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Bellingham PD passing out false information

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

    Post imported post

    I have few details but am trying to get more. A friend of mine is a college student. Another student told him that the Bellingham PD told him that open carry is illegal. My friend took a flyer to school today and I am trying to get more information as to who said it, under what circumstances it was said, and when it was said.

    Gray, is it time for a meeting with the Bellingham PD? We have svg's case plus this rumor. I am more than willing to attend if you can help out here. Is there something that should be done first from a contact/informational perspective?

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I just had a meeting with them, neither one of us wanted to get into details because of possible lawsuit. They know its legal, at least now they do, although they insisted with me under illegal detainment it wasn't but they then had to let me go both times fully armed.

    I open carried with my meeting with Deputy chief Doll and their attorney.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    and their attorney.
    ? And your attorney ?

    I would like to see a training bulletin by the department to their officers. Did you ask if they were planning on issuing a bulletin or was the discussion mostly about your illegal detainment?

    If the latter, their admission of legality, unfortunately, may or may not lead to behavioral changes when confronted with citizens exercising their rights.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Still working on the attorney thing from my side, Attorney wants info on case wich takes up to 3 weeks.

    The discussion was more centered on "cop" safety. And protecting the fears of others who are afraid of seeing people with guns. Wich I think I handled fairly well.

    Their attorney mentioned several times how litigation is long and expensive, making me think they are afraid of that.

    He didn't want to get into PC for detainment due to the fact that it might go the way of lawsuit. He also mentioned that their has been a lot of discussion in the department about what to do, because of my incident. I didn't bring up the point of training bulletins. For a couple of reasons.

    Their attorney tried to make a case for qualified immunity wich I quickly dispelled, for a couple of reasons.

    Also, they do read this forum, Deputy Chief Doll did mention that he knows I am a good guy and he isn't afraid of my carrying , and linked that comment to the reading ofthis forum.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Still working on the attorney thing from my side, Attorney wants info on case wich takes up to 3 weeks.

    The discussion was more centered on "cop" safety. And protecting the fears of others who are afraid of seeing people with guns. Wich I think I handled fairly well.

    Their attorney mentioned several times how litigation is long and expensive, making me think they are afraid of that.

    He didn't want to get into PC for detainment due to the fact that it might go the way of lawsuit. He also mentioned that their has been a lot of discussion in the department about what to do, because of my incident. I didn't bring up the point of training bulletins. For a couple of reasons.

    Their attorney tried to make a case for qualified immunity wich I quickly dispelled, for a couple of reasons.

    Also, they do read this forum, Deputy Chief Doll did mention that he knows I am a good guy and he isn't afraid of my carrying , and linked that comment to the reading ofthis forum.
    I would bring up that case from New Mexico, too.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I did.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Still working on the attorney thing from my side, Attorney wants info on case wich takes up to 3 weeks.

    The discussion was more centered on "cop" safety. And protecting the fears of others who are afraid of seeing people with guns. Wich I think I handled fairly well.

    Their attorney mentioned several times how litigation is long and expensive, making me think they are afraid of that.

    He didn't want to get into PC for detainment due to the fact that it might go the way of lawsuit. He also mentioned that their has been a lot of discussion in the department about what to do, because of my incident. I didn't bring up the point of training bulletins. For a couple of reasons.

    Their attorney tried to make a case for qualified immunity wich I quickly dispelled, for a couple of reasons.

    Also, they do read this forum, Deputy Chief Doll did mention that he knows I am a good guy and he isn't afraid of my carrying , and linked that comment to the reading ofÂ*this forum.
    I would bring up that case from New Mexico, too.
    How does that case effect our laws? Diff. state, diff. circuit too right?
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Its a published federal decision, and sets a precedent.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Its a published federal decision, and sets a precedent.
    I think not so much sets a precedent because it is a different circuit, but what it does is shows how federal courts are treating this issue. Gives them pause when they are deciding whether to fight something in court, if published opinions are going against their argument.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I open carried with my meeting with Deputy chief Doll and their attorney.
    Excellent!

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I open carried with my meeting with Deputy chief Doll and their attorney.
    Excellent!
    Thanks Mike , I was wondering if they were going to try to make me disarm, but they didn't.

    Heresolong, thanks for the clarification, I was under the impression that published cases even in different circuits help set a precedent.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    They do set precedent. A published federal court opinion, even if it is a different circuit, is going to be used by the courts to help them reach an opinion. Since the New Mexico case is federal, it will be looked highly on as guidance as to how to handle a related case.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    They do set precedent. A published federal court opinion, even if it is a different circuit, is going to be used by the courts to help them reach an opinion. Since the New Mexico case is federal, it will be looked highly on as guidance as to how to handle a related case.
    So that's why the 9th Circus can hold that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and the 7th can hold that it doesn't?

    A published case can be used by the parties to support their position and to that extent may be used by the courts to reach a decision. Being published, however, does not make a case precedent, that is, binding on other courts. A 9th Circus decision is only binding in the 9th Circus (at least until it's reversed by SCOTUS). Only SCOTUS opinions are binding everywhere (although our Court of Final Error can decide to give citizens greater protection under the WA State Constitution). Unpublished cases cannot be cited under WA court rules but they can have some value - - I take unpublished case language and use it to make arguments in briefs all the time.

    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    Vandal wrote:
    They do set precedent. A published federal court opinion, even if it is a different circuit, is going to be used by the courts to help them reach an opinion. Since the New Mexico case is federal, it will be looked highly on as guidance as to how to handle a related case.
    So that's why the 9th Circus can hold that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and the 7th can hold that it doesn't?

    A published case can be used by the parties to support their position and to that extent may be used by the courts to reach a decision. Being published, however, does not make a case precedent, that is, binding on other courts. A 9th Circus decision is only binding in the 9th Circus (at least until it's reversed by SCOTUS). Only SCOTUS opinions are binding everywhere (although our Court of Final Error can decide to give citizens greater protection under the WA State Constitution). Unpublished cases cannot be cited under WA court rules but they can have some value - - I take unpublished case language and use it to make arguments in briefs all the time.
    Yea another lawyer on board, welcome on board, Its always good to have some legal eagles here to help us laymen understand legal termonology and the way things are done.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Lammo, thanks for posting that. We've had a lot of discussion on this forum about Casad and the fact the decision was unpublished. I've always thought that the logic used therein was usable elsewhere. After all, logic is logic.

    Welcome to our forum.

    MD

  16. #16
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    Lammo, thanks for posting that. We've had a lot of discussion on this forum about Casad and the fact the decision was unpublished. I've always thought that the logic used therein was usable elsewhere. After all, logic is logic.

    Welcome to our forum.

    MD
    Thanks. Glad to be here. Don't know why I didn't find y'all until this past week. I hadn't come across Casad before. It's a good case for OC and I wish it were published. I'll remember it if I ever need it. To me, the best line for OC is:

    "(A)n individual's lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people."
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lynden, Washington, USA
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    I have few details but am trying to get more. A friend of mine is a college student. Another student told him that the Bellingham PD told him that open carry is illegal. My friend took a flyer to school today and I am trying to get more information as to who said it, under what circumstances it was said, and when it was said.

    Gray, is it time for a meeting with the Bellingham PD? We have svg's case plus this rumor. I am more than willing to attend if you can help out here. Is there something that should be done first from a contact/informational perspective?
    I've heard similar things too. I was talking with someone about a similar subject and they said that they asked a Bellingham police officer about it and they said it was illegal. I tried to convince him otherwise but people tend to believe a police officer over someone they barely know. Anyways, Its pretty obvious that the local pd need some reduction on the mater.

Posting Permissions

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