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

swatspyder · Nov 30, 2009

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.

G20-IWB24/7 · Nov 30, 2009

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.

heresolong · Nov 30, 2009

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?

joeroket · Nov 30, 2009

imported post

heresolong wrote:

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

Only felons are prohibited from owning/wearing body armor in this state.

Click to expand...

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.

j2l3 · Nov 30, 2009

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.

FMCDH · Nov 30, 2009

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

marshaul · Nov 30, 2009

imported post

joeroket wrote:

heresolong wrote:

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

Only felons are prohibited from owning/wearing body armor in this state.

Click to expand...

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.

Thanks for the cite.

G20-IWB24/7 · Nov 30, 2009

imported post

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

TechnoWeenie · Nov 30, 2009

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...

Gray Peterson · Nov 30, 2009

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?

Kildars · Nov 30, 2009

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.

Bill Starks · Nov 30, 2009

imported post

FMCDH · Nov 30, 2009

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

Click to expand...

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]

Lammo · Dec 1, 2009

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

Click to expand...

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.

N6ATF · Dec 1, 2009

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?

FMCDH · Dec 1, 2009

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.

joeroket · Dec 1, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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.

joeroket · Dec 1, 2009

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 crime while possessing a deadly weapon. Don't commit a crime, you won't have to do the time.

Click to expand...

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.

massivedesign · Dec 2, 2009

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

badger54 · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

SPD was looking for this guy across the street from were I work on Monday the 30th.

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

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member