Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Don't go to Seattle looking to hunt down the guy!

  1. #1
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    seanmcclintock: Police scanner right now talking about vigilante driving around in body armor with a gun looking for suspect #washooting

    Scanner traffic had an officer asking about body armor being illegal. As far as I know, it is fully legal to own and wear body armor.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    seanmcclintock: Police scanner right now talking about vigilante driving around in body armor with a gun looking for suspect #washooting

    Scanner traffic had an officer asking about body armor being illegal. As far as I know, it is fully legal to own and wear body armor.
    Only felons are prohibited from owning/wearing body armor in this state.

    However, vigilante justice is prohibited everywhere, last time I checked (which was yesterday, late morning .) Let the police do their job, and report a tip if you have one. I hate it when people get in my way when I'm doing my job, I'd bet the investigators in this case have the same attitude.

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

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Only felons are prohibited from owning/wearing body armor in this state.
    I was not aware of this. Can you cite an RCW for us?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Only felons are prohibited from owning/wearing body armor in this state.
    I was not aware of this. Can you cite an RCW for us?
    It is not a state law but rather a federal law.

    Sec. 931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body
    armor by violent felons
    Code:
    (a) In General. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall
    be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor,
    if that person has been convicted of a felony that is - 
    
    (1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
    
    (2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of
    violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special
    maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
    (b) Affirmative Defense. - 
    
    (1) In general. - It shall be an affirmative defense under this
    section that - 
    
    (A) the defendant obtained prior written certification from
    
    his or her employer that the defendant's purchase, use, or
    
    possession of body armor was necessary for the safe performance
    
    of lawful business activity; and
    
    (B) the use and possession by the defendant were limited to
    
    the course of such performance.
    
    (2) Employer. - In this subsection, the term "employer" means
    any other individual employed by the defendant's business that
    supervises defendant's activity. If that defendant has no
    supervisor, prior written certification is acceptable from any
    other employee of the business.
    "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

  5. #5
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    RCW's tell you what you can't do.. not what you can. If is not prohibited then it is permitted.

    There are no RCW's prohibiting wear of body armor by law abiding citizens.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Oregon has a law against it, but Washington does not. They attempted to pass one this year but I think it died in committee.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1922

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Only felons are prohibited from owning/wearing body armor in this state.Â*
    I was not aware of this.Â* Can you cite an RCW for us?
    It is not a state law but rather a federal law.

    Sec. 931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body
    armor by violent felons
    Code:
    (a) In General. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall
    be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor,
    if that person has been convicted of a felony that is - 
    
    (1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
    
    (2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of
    violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special
    maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
    (b) Affirmative Defense. - 
    
    (1) In general. - It shall be an affirmative defense under this
    section that - 
    
    (A) the defendant obtained prior written certification from
    
    his or her employer that the defendant's purchase, use, or
    
    possession of body armor was necessary for the safe performance
    
    of lawful business activity; and
    
    (B) the use and possession by the defendant were limited to
    
    the course of such performance.
    
    (2) Employer. - In this subsection, the term "employer" means
    any other individual employed by the defendant's business that
    supervises defendant's activity. If that defendant has no
    supervisor, prior written certification is acceptable from any
    other employee of the business.
    Thanks for the cite.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Couldn't remember whether it was a federal or state law. Thanks for the clarification. Either way, felon=no body armor.



  9. #9
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    How the #%(& does one get caught doing that?

    Wearing the vest on the outside?

    If one is just driving around, or talking to people trying to gather info, how the #%(& do you get stopped and make it known that you're 'a vigilante'.. ?

    Nothing wrong with hunting a man down, killing him is something else though.

    Methinks this guy has an ego trip, or spouted off his mouth about 'going to kill someone' or some crazy #%(& like that...
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Oregon has a law against it, but Washington does not. They attempted to pass one this year but I think it died in committee.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1922
    Can you cite the Oregon law?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    His time is limited. His family may be helping him,

    http://www.kirotv.com/news/21766284/detail.html

    and the evidence states he is bleeding badly.

  12. #12
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post


  13. #13
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    Oregon has a law against it, but Washington does not. They attempted to pass one this year but I think it died in committee.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1922
    Can you cite the Oregon law?
    Here ya go....

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

    POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR
    166.641 Definitions for ORS 166.641 to 166.643
    166.642 Felon in possession of body armor
    166.643 Unlawful possession of body armor
    POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR
    166.641 Definitions for ORS 166.641 to 166.643.[/b] As used in this section and ORS 166.642 and 166.643:[/b]
    (1) “Body armor” means any clothing or equipment designed in whole or in part to minimize the risk of injury from a deadly weapon.
    (2) “Deadly weapon” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015.
    (3) “Misdemeanor involving violence” has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.470. [2001 c.635 §1]
    166.642 Felon in possession of body armor.[/b] (1) A person commits the crime of felon in possession of body armor if the person:[/b]
    (a) Has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving violence under the law of any state or the United States; and
    (b) Knowingly is in possession or control of body armor.
    (2) Felon in possession of body armor is a Class C felony.
    (3) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a person who has been found to be within the jurisdiction of a juvenile court for having committed an act that would constitute a felony or misdemeanor involving violence has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving violence.
    (4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
    (a) A person who is wearing body armor provided by a peace officer for the person’s safety or protection while the person is being transported or accompanied by a peace officer; or
    (b) A person who has been convicted of only one felony under the law of this state or any other state, or who has been convicted of only one felony under the law of the United States, which felony did not involve criminal homicide, as defined in ORS 163.005, and who has been discharged from imprisonment, parole or probation for the offense for a period of 15 years prior to the date of the alleged violation of subsection (1) of this section.
    (5) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that a protective order or restraining order has been entered to the benefit of the person. The affirmative defense created by this subsection is not available if the person possesses the body armor while committing or attempting to commit a crime. [2001 c.635 §2]
    166.643 Unlawful possession of body armor.[/b] (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of body armor if the person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony or misdemeanor involving violence, knowingly:[/b]
    (a) Wears body armor; and
    (b) Possesses a deadly weapon.
    (2) Unlawful possession of body armor is a Class B felony. [2001 c.635 §3]


  14. #14
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    Oregon has a law against it, but Washington does not. They attempted to pass one this year but I think it died in committee.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1922
    Can you cite the Oregon law?
    Here ya go....

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

    POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR
    166.641 Definitions for ORS 166.641 to 166.643
    166.642 Felon in possession of body armor
    166.643 Unlawful possession of body armor
    - SNIP -
    166.643 Unlawful possession of body armor.[/b] (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of body armor if the person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony or misdemeanor involving violence, knowingly:[/b]
    (a) Wears body armor; and
    (b) Possesses a deadly weapon.
    (2) Unlawful possession of body armor is a Class B felony. [2001 c.635 §3]
    The way I read this (and IAAL) an ordinary citizen (non-LEO, non-felon) would not be precluded from possessing or using body armor so long as they are not committing or attempting to commit a violent crimewhile possessinga deadly weapon. Don't commit a crime, you won't have to do 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)

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    How the #%(& does one get caught doing that?

    Wearing the vest on the outside?

    If one is just driving around, or talking to people trying to gather info, how the #%(& do you get stopped and make it known that you're 'a vigilante'.. ?

    Nothing wrong with hunting a man down, killing him is something else though.
    Didn't Maurice Clemmons jump bail or violate the terms of his bail, bringing his possible capture into the realm of bounty hunters/bail enforcement agents?

  16. #16
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    The way I read this (and IAAL) an ordinary citizen (non-LEO, non-felon) would not be precluded from possessing or using body armor so long as they are not committing or attempting to commit a violent crimewhile possessinga deadly weapon. Don't commit a crime, you won't have to do the time.
    That's kinda the gist I got from it too.

    I notice the wording is different between the federal and Oregon state laws, but I haven't taken the time to compare them side by side to determine any significant differences.

    Overall, they sound about the same.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    How the #%(& does one get caught doing that?

    Wearing the vest on the outside?

    If one is just driving around, or talking to people trying to gather info, how the #%(& do you get stopped and make it known that you're 'a vigilante'.. ?

    Nothing wrong with hunting a man down, killing him is something else though.
    Didn't Maurice Clemmons jump bail or violate the terms of his bail, bringing his possible capture into the realm of bounty hunters/bail enforcement agents?
    By committing a crime he did violate the terms of his bail and yes it could bring it in the realm of a bail agent.
    "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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Lammo wrote:
    The way I read this (and IAAL) an ordinary citizen (non-LEO, non-felon) would not be precluded from possessing or using body armor so long as they are not committing or attempting to commit a violent crimeÂ*while possessingÂ*a deadly weapon.Â* Don't commit a crime, you won't have to do the time.
    That's kinda the gist I got from it too.

    I notice the wording is different between the federal and Oregon state laws, but I haven't taken the time to compare them side by side to determine any significant differences.

    Overall, they sound about the same.
    That is exactly the way it reads. Non-felons are allowed to possess and/or wear body armor unless it is disallowed by state law.
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866

    Post imported post

    CT has a stringent Body armor law.. I can't fined the cite, but I have seen it before. Every other state in the US, except ONE has the "extra felony charge" associated with wearing body armor during a crime. KY is the only state that doesn't have that charge (that I have found).

    Also, in CT, you cannot buy Body armor off the internet. It HAS to be a face to face transaction. I have sold a few of my vests to residents in CT, but the transaction had to come from a buddy in Mass. or another neighboring state, then the buddy sells the vest in person to the buyer in CT..

    WA has for a while pondered back and forth that same idea, face to face for body armor and even firearms. Never as high as the leg level, but low line committees and LEO's have tossed it back and forth. wheeee
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    SPD was looking for this guy across the street from were I work on Monday the 30th.
    WTT: Glock 27 for Glock 26

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    So maybe it's just me, but aren't body armor control lawseven dumber than gun control laws? What is the point of prohibiting someone, even a felon (used be to called "ex-cons") from protecting themselves from bullets or any other danger? It's not like you can shoot or stabsomebody with a plate of ceramic.

    It's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer: the government wants to be able to kill you when the time comes.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    So maybe it's just me, but aren't body armor control lawseven dumber than gun control laws? What is the point of prohibiting someone, even a felon (used be to called "ex-cons") from protecting themselves from bullets or any other danger? It's not like you can shoot or stabsomebody with a plate of ceramic.

    It's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer: the government wants to be able to kill you when the time comes.
    I was thinking the same thing......things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
    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)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer: the government wants to be able to kill you when the time comes.
    Considering that they have all the best guns and ammo restricted to themselves, I don't think body armor is that much of an impediment.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer: the government wants to be able to kill you when the time comes.
    Considering that they have all the best guns and ammo restricted to themselves, I don't think body armor is that much of an impediment.
    It is if your local PD end up being their foot soldiers.
    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)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    N6ATF wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer: the government wants to be able to kill you when the time comes.
    Considering that they have all the best guns and ammo restricted to themselves, I don't think body armor is that much of an impediment.
    It is if your local PD end up being their foot soldiers.
    My local PD got a tax increase to buy weapons that will make Swiss cheese out of body armor.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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