• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

I went to the meeting this morning

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
Poosharker wrote:
Oh and to gogodawgs,
I had a feeling about that post, read the url, still got fooled into clicking it, and comcast told me it doesn't exist! Fix your link next time! ;)

Read what it says....I was just trying to be funny.... nope the link does not exist...haha!

:banghead:
someone should register that site and redirect it to the white house homepage.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

no connections, I saw the price and was laughing the whole time setting it up. I have it forwarded but it may take some time to be activated.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

Well Done Poo !

- Your a brave soul, and commendable were your actions today. I seriously hope a few people (like the old lady you mentioned) stops to think about how kline was acting, and realises that they wont face any hard questions, they will just try to lie and brainwash people into their little fold... i think you may have opened and eye or two without even knowing.

- I applaud your efforts.

;)Bat
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
Lammo wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
BTW, if you didn't know, in Washington no law enforcement officer may enter your home without a search warrant, no matter what they say. That is RCW 10.79.040

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.79.040:

RCW 10.79.040
Search without warrant unlawful — Penalty.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any policeman or other peace officer to enter and search any private dwelling house or place of residence without the authority of a search warrant issued upon a complaint as by law provided.

(2) Any policeman or other peace officer violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
SNIP
I deal with search and seizure issues on a daily basis and the statute you cite has never been raised in any of my cases. It only forbids search without a warrant, not entry. There are all sorts of ways for law enforcement to enter homes without a warrant.The primary means is the welfare check/community caretaking function. If the entry is not to conduct a search any contraband seen during the entry is subject to seizure. That would include anybanned firearms in plain viewif they ever get this garbage passed. In any event, I wouldn't put it past the forces of darkness and evil behind this kind of junk to enact an exception for entry to check on the safe storage of firearms, which would follow after legislation to require safe storage.
if you believe what you wrote, read it again.
Well, I guess it's clear that you don't believe what I wrote so it appears that I'm the trouble maker today. I believe what I wrote and I stand by it. Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear so I will try to explain.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have been a prosecutor for 22 1/2 years (darn lawyers) and I am currently on my third tour through our drug unit (I keep having relapses). It is absolutely true that no defense attorney or court has ever referred to RCW 10.79.040 in any warrantless search case I have ever worked on.

I posted my comment because I was under the impression that NavyLT took the position that law enforcement cannot enter a home without a search warrant. Maybe I think that because he wrote "in Washington no law enforcement officer may enter your home without a search warrant, no matter what they say." and then cited RCW 10.79.040.

This is simply not what the statute says and it is not the law in this state. The statute says "enter and search" not "enter or search". So long as the purpose for the entry is not to search, that is, to look for evidence of a crime, the cited statute does not prohibit or penalize law enforcement entry into a home.

There are even situations where they can search without a warrant, e.g. consent after the giving of Ferrier warnings (State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 (1998)). Go to the following link and look at pages 170 through 218 if you think the police always need a warrant to enter or to search. Link: http://www.waprosecutors.org/MANUALS/search/May 2008 -- new -- search SEIZURE AND CONFESSIONS.pdf

Does this make any more sense now? Maybe trying to correct what I see as incorrect statements of the law around here is more trouble than it is worth. I would just hate to see someone get jacked up for obstructing or resisting because they got in a cop's face over an otherwise justified warrantless entry based on something they read in this forum.

Edited to try to fix link. joeroket actually fixed it below. Thanks joe!
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Poosharker wrote:
NavyLT wrote:



But I really need to get one of those pistol grip thingies that will aim the weapon for me while I am shooting from the hip! That sounds really cooL!

You can't do that! That is not appropriate for "hunting deer", which is what firearms are supposed to be used for! According to the folks at the meeting. Sigh, another detail I forgot to put in the OP. "Deer hunting", you don't need an AR-15 for that!

GOD I WAS PANICKING IN THE MORNING, I WISH I HAD A RECORDER, SUCH SHORT NOTICE UGH.
Not even legal to hunt deer with an AR-15.... the anti-gunners and hunter haters of this State have been restricting us for years now (since the 1960s) and they won't stop until every single thing we do INCLUDING BREATHING is taxed and controlled.
Cite, thanks.
Fish and Wildlife pamphlet here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/huntregs2009.pdf Page 62. Source: WAC 232-12-047 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-047
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Lammo wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
Lammo wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
BTW, if you didn't know, in Washington no law enforcement officer may enter your home without a search warrant, no matter what they say.  That is RCW 10.79.040

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.79.040:

RCW 10.79.040
Search without warrant unlawful — Penalty.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any policeman or other peace officer to enter and search any private dwelling house or place of residence without the authority of a search warrant issued upon a complaint as by law provided.

     (2) Any policeman or other peace officer violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
SNIP
I deal with search and seizure issues on a daily basis and the statute you cite has never been raised in any of my cases.  It only forbids search without a warrant, not entry.  There are all sorts of ways for law enforcement to enter homes without a warrant.   The primary means is the welfare check/community caretaking function.  If the entry is not to conduct a search any contraband seen during the entry is subject to seizure.  That would include any banned firearms in plain view if they ever get this garbage passed.   In any event, I wouldn't put it past the forces of darkness and evil behind this kind of junk to enact an exception for entry to check on the safe storage of firearms, which would follow after legislation to require safe storage.

 
if you believe what you wrote, read it again.
Well, I guess it's clear that you don't believe what I wrote so it appears that I'm the trouble maker today.  I believe what I wrote and I stand by it.  Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear so I will try to explain.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have been a prosecutor for 22 1/2 years (darn lawyers) and I am currently on my third tour through our drug unit (I keep having relapses).  It is absolutely true that no defense attorney or court has ever referred to RCW 10.79.040 in any warrantless search case I have ever worked on.

I posted my comment because I was under the impression that NavyLT took the position that law enforcement cannot enter a home without a search warrant.  Maybe I think that because he wrote "in Washington no law enforcement officer may enter your home without a search warrant, no matter what they say." and then cited RCW 10.79.040.

This is simply not what the statute says and it is not the law in this state.  The statute says "enter and search" not "enter or search".  So long as the purpose for the entry is not to search, that is, to look for evidence of a crime, the cited statute does not prohibit or penalize law enforcement entry into a home.

There are even situations where they can search without a warrant, e.g. consent after the giving of Ferrier warnings (State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 (1998)).  Go to the following link and look at pages 170 through 218 if you think the police always need a warrant to enter or to search.  Link:  http://www.waprosecutors.org/MANUALS/search/May 2008 -- new --  search SEIZURE AND CONFESSIONS.pdf

Does this make any more sense now?  Maybe trying to correct what I see as incorrect statements of the law around here is more trouble than it is worth.  I would just hate to see someone get jacked up for obstructing or resisting because they got in a cop's face over an otherwise justified warrantless entry based on something they read in this forum.

Edited to fix link

Fixed link;

http://www.waprosecutors.org/MANUALS/search/May 2008 -- new -- search SEIZURE AND CONFESSIONS.pdf
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
Lammo wrote:
Does this make any more sense now? Maybe trying to correct what I see as incorrect statements of the law around here is more trouble than it is worth. I would just hate to see someone get jacked up for obstructing or resisting because they got in a cop's face over an otherwise justified warrantless entry based on something they read in this forum.

Edited to try to fix link. joeroket actually fixed it below. Thanks joe!
Lammo,

Thank you for the correction, and the documentation to support the correction. I don't feel posting such corrections is more trouble than it is worth, however, simply to come on and say that someone is wrong, and not post anything to back your statement up offers no more substance than the incorrect post did to begin with.

While I now agree with you that officers do have the ability to enter a private dwelling without a warrant under restricted circumstances, people do need to be aware, however, that simply being a cop by itself does not give them the right to enter someone's home at their will.

A prime example would be a noise complaint due to a party. Cop shows up. BillyBob looks through the keyhole and sees the cop. He yells "It's the cops! Turn down the music! BobbySue, put yer top back on and git off that table!" Then he steps outside to speak to the officer and closes the door behind him. I would venture to guess that under these circumstances, the officer would be very hard pressed to justify entering the home without consent. And maybe, even, BillyBob tells the cop, through a cracked open door, "Just a minute, I have to take my gun off," before he goes outside.
I'm good with that and in the future I'll be more thorough. Your loud party example is a fair one but the situation will depend, partly, on how the call came in to 911 from the neighbors. For example, if BobbySue is, shall we say, exuberant and highly vocal, the call may be that a woman is being attacked - - She's screaming! Come quickly (so to speak)! - - then the officers are likely going to insist on entry to make sure no one has been hurt. If you are polite and reasonable with them they should be polite and reasonable with you. Sadly, I know all too well that this is not always the case.

Merry Christmas and thank you for your service!
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

On the hunting issue: it's got nothing to do with the design of the rifle, it's the caliber. You can most certainly hunt deer with an AR as long as it's chambered in something .24 cal or greater.
 

daddyman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
37
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Rent the movie "Charlie Wilsons War" and be sure to watch the special features interviews.... The world of politicians is quite different than ours. And remember what they do to people of other nations they will do to their own.
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

swatspyder wrote:
Poosharker is in the komo news broadcast about the ban.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/79581482.html?tab=video


Oh, and who can tell me how many times the lady says "babies?" lol

Didn't I mention something about "emotional" stuff to get the audience in the mood.... these are babies! Well I sure as heck don't want to shoot someone now because they are babies!

The way the speakers came in turn with what they had to say was nicely planned....they sucked that audience right up....

This makes me want to punch babies! <<<< Just kidding!
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
My disagreement has qualifications. Yes, you're right, and I misunderstood part of it before. I've been researching this for the last hour or so.

Been there and done that. It is a long process researching that subject and there are many interesting court cases at both the state and federal level that bring new light into the issue all the time.
Which wouldn't be necessary if they would just write the laws concisely the first time around. ;)
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
joeroket wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
My disagreement has qualifications.  Yes, you're right, and I misunderstood part of it before.  I've been researching this for the last hour or so. 

Been there and done that. It is a long process researching that subject and there are many interesting court cases at both the state and federal level that bring new light into the issue all the time.
Which wouldn't be necessary if they would just write the laws concisely the first time around.  ;)

Ha. How true it is.
 
Top