Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Booted from The Mandolin Café

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I’ve waited a week to report this as I wanted to give the owners a chance to discuss it first, in case it was a misunderstanding on their part.

    On the evening of 17 December, I stopped by The Mandolin Café to have a coffee and use their free WiFi. I have been a regular customer for many years, and was well known, and good friends with, the original owners and staff. I hadn’t been in much for a number of reasons, but I have open carried in there a half dozen times since the new owners took over. On this particular night someone, manager or owner, called the police. Neither the owner, manager, nor anyone from the staff at any point attempted to discuss it with me.

    When the officers arrived I was sitting quietly working on my computer. One of them asked me for my identification but I politely declined to provide it. As you might imagine, this created a small scene; most of the customers weren’t even aware that I was armed, but they were after that! The two officers spoke to the owner or manager and returned to tell me that I had to leave my sidearm in my car or leave. I left.

    That evening I wrote an email to the owners discussing the incident. I informed them that I was carrying my sidearm lawfully, and that I would never leave a loaded firearm in a car. I also reminded them that there have been break-ins in their parking lot in the past. I waited eight days and received no response whatsoever from the Mandolin Café. Today I wrote the following email:

    To Whom it May concern,

    I have waited eight days and received no response to my previous email. I just wanted to let you know that I will be adding The Mandolin Café to the Do Not Patronize list for firearms owners. The list is a short one, as most business owners recognize the simple fact that barring law abiding firearms owners from their establishment means that only unlawful firearms carriers are welcome.

    Yours will be the only the second business I’ve submitted to the list as most owners or managers I’ve spoken with, once they discovered that it is lawful to carry a firearm, affirmed that they welcome gun owners. The first, Joe’s Sports (formerly GI Joe’s), is no longer on the list, because they went out of business.

    This situation is a shame since I used to be a frequent customer for many years.
    If anyone would like to add anything intelligent, their email address is: cafe@themandolincafe.com.

    So this will be my second submission to the list. Your sidearm is not welcome and they seem unwilling to discuss it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    "One of them asked me for my identification but I politely declined to provide it."

    Couldnt figure out how to quote.

    I thought that if asked by a LEA you had to provide ID. Am I wrong on this?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bovaloe wrote:
    "One of them asked me for my identification but I politely declined to provide it."

    Couldnt figure out how to quote.

    I thought that if asked by a LEA you had to provide ID. Am I wrong on this?
    Yes. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, you are not required to provide identification.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

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

    Post imported post

    They have to have RAS, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

    Now since this is your one and only post, I would like to welcome you aboard. Hope you enjoy OCDO.

    How did you hear about us were you one of the investigating officers?
    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
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    Thats to bad. My uncle sings there every now and then and I enjoy watching him.....OCed there a few times....no probs

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    I sent an email expressing my regret that I will no longer be able to frequent their business.
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    They have to have RAS, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

    Now since this is your one and only post, I would like to welcome you aboard. Hope you enjoy OCDO.

    How did you hear about us were you one of the investigating officers?
    No ive been lurking around here for awhile, I usually CC but everyonce in a while I do OC. I like to keep my weapon in the same spot for muscle memory purposes so I dont OC that often.

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

    Post imported post

    Cool welcome to the forum. You should come to a meet. It's not all guns either just good folk getting together. What part of the state are you in in if in Washington?
    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
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    They have to have RAS, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

    Now since this is your one and only post, I would like to welcome you aboard. Hope you enjoy OCDO.

    How did you hear about us were you one of the investigating officers?
    In Washington state, even if you are detained with valid RAS you ARE NOT REQUIRED to provide any ID whatsoever.

    See the Law Enforcement Digest, Aug 2004 issue printed by the Washington state Criminal Justice Training Commission.



  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    They have to have RAS, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

    Now since this is your one and only post, I would like to welcome you aboard. Hope you enjoy OCDO.

    How did you hear about us were you one of the investigating officers?
    In Washington state, even if you are detained with valid RAS you ARE NOT REQUIRED to provide any ID whatsoever.

    See the Law Enforcement Digest, Aug 2004 issue printed by the Washington state Criminal Justice Training Commission.

    Yes you are correct, I miswrote. We are not a stop and identify state, and I don't carry my I.D. around for that very reason. Much to the chagrin of the Bellingham PD.





    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    that link didnt seem to work???
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Yes you are correct, I miswrote. We are not a stop and identify state, and I don't carry my I.D. around for that very reason. Much to the chagrin of the Bellingham PD.




    Don't you drive around in a vehicle?

    Or do you only go I.D.-less when you are not operating a motor vehicle?

    It's getting hard to go around I.D.-less, at my grandmas apartment building, no I.D., no entry.....can't even visit my grandmother without giving their rent-a-cop my drivers license number.....


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I leave my license in the car. If am going somewhere I need it I'll carry it to than of course. But there are very few places I need to do so.
    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)

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    Neither the owner, manager, nor anyone from the staff at any point attempted to discuss it with me.

    The two officers spoke to the owner or manager and returned to tell me that I had to leave my sidearm in my car or leave. I left.
    Another case of LEO operating outside the scope of their authority. If the LEO had wanted to actually observe the law themselves, they would have told the owners/managers of the establishment that they could not remove you from the premises nor intervene because until the persons in charge of that property had actually asked you to leave themselves, there is nothing, legally, the police can do.

    Good job standing up to them, Mainsail!
    Interesting thought...

    So NavyLT....in this scenario we should respond to the police "officer, I have never been asked to leave the premises?" or is it acceptable for the LEO to confer with 'two or more' employees that we were asked to leave?

    Live Free or Die!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Thank you, you spelled this out beautifully. I concur that forcing the owner/employee and LEO to go through the proper steps would be beneficial. It is great to have some of you with the experience that us newbies lack in assisting us in figuring this all out.
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Thank you, you spelled this out beautifully. I concur that forcing the owner/employee and LEO to go through the proper steps would be beneficial. It is great to have some of you with the experience that us newbies lack in assisting us in figuring this all out.
    If management is "afraid" to approach the open carrier to ask them to leave, the correct course of action would be to request the police to accompany them while management asks them to leave, but it has to be management/employees that makes the request to leave, not the police.
    Well, at this point it's doubtful we'll ever know what the police might have said. The owners don't seem interested in a dialog. I'll chalk it up to another lesson learned for next time. In the future I will not be so easy to leave, and I'll make sure I get the officers names.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    Neither the owner, manager, nor anyone from the staff at any point attempted to discuss it with me.

    The two officers spoke to the owner or manager and returned to tell me that I had to leave my sidearm in my car or leave. I left.
    Another case of LEO operating outside the scope of their authority. If the LEO had wanted to actually observe the law themselves, they would have told the owners/managers of the establishment that they could not remove you from the premises nor intervene because until the persons in charge of that property had actually asked you to leave themselves, there is nothing, legally, the police can do.

    Good job standing up to them, Mainsail!
    We've been over this many times in other threads. If ANYONE who works for, owns, or manages the business (private property) asks an Officer to have a person leave the business, they must and will leave. The Officer is then acting as an agent for the business to enforce a private property law. If they refuse they are then trespassing, and can be subject to arrest if the Officer chooses to.

    Also you don't have to provide ID to get booked into jail, It just means you willnot be releaseduntil your identity is determined.
    If you have to fight, do not fear death. We will all die one day, so fight skillfully and bravely! And if it is to be that you die, then at least go to God proudly. Meet him as the proud warrior that you are, and not as a sniveling coward. Nobody lives forever.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:

    Would you please post a citation to something official that states that police officers are allowed to act as agents of property owners? Police officers may act to enforce the law, they may not act as agents of private parties to enforce their wishes or company policies.

    Only after a person with any actual authority over the private property (owner, manager, employee) asks a person to leave and they don't, THEN it is trespassing.
    I'm not sure where to find a cite for this, or I would. Any attorney can confirm this.

    So if what you say is true, an Officer could not make a person leave a residence, if the owner or resident asked them to? It's the same thing, all private property.

    An employee or representative of the business does not have to ask the person to leavethemselves, unless they wish to. Many times they do not want to deal with the situation, and the Police can and do act as their agent to deal with the issue.
    If you have to fight, do not fear death. We will all die one day, so fight skillfully and bravely! And if it is to be that you die, then at least go to God proudly. Meet him as the proud warrior that you are, and not as a sniveling coward. Nobody lives forever.

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    The question that comes to my mind is: How many times do managers of establishments call because they see someone with a gun in their establishment. Officers respond and because they take it upon themselves to "Suggest" that the party be tresspassed from their premises. Rather than explain that the person is going about a perfectly legal activity, and is causing no problems, they set the stage in the callers mind that they should follow the officers suggestion. At that point, if they do tell the police they want the person removed, then I agree with Johnny Law, they are perfoming their job when they insure the departure of the person with the gun.

    I feel that all too often a subtle form of coercion is performed on the caller and it often occurs out of earshot of the subject in question so there is no way for them to know and in turn, take action under appropriate RCW.

    I find it interesting that in this day and age, where people merely minding their own business and enjoying a cup of coffee, can be ambushed and essentially be executed. Nobody thinks of disarming Police Officers but are "Civilians" to be denied their right to provide for their own defense as outlined in Art. 1, Sec. 24?

    Until their is a clear answer, I support the notion of boycotting any business that deprives us of this right. I might make exception for one that has armed guards posted for my protection while patronizing their establishment.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  20. #20
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    I dont much understand unarmed guards, esp as things are today. Saw one at Target in tacoma, and thought, wow, if something happens he can call 911. Thats handy. dont know if its real handy to be in uniform since it seems thatll be the first one taken out in a robbery.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    I don't much understand unarmed guards, esp as things are today. Saw one at Target in tacoma, and thought, wow, if something happens he can call 911. That's handy. don't know if its real handy to be in uniform since it seems that willbe the first one taken out in a robbery.
    The only way I could understand unarmed guards (only reason is to call 911) is if they had a heightened situational awareness and were crowd/people watching with great skill. However, I watch them all the time and they DO NOT! They do not even notice me watching them. Example, at the Tacoma Mall yesterday I watched all of them walking in circles and never scanning the crowd. After watching 3 walk by I finally thought I will stare one down and see if he notices. I stared for 2 to 3 minutes (that is a long time! think of how long Fort Hood took) and he finally noticed me watching him. I was just standing with my back against a wall waiting for my daughters scanning the crowd. Did he do anything? NO he just kept moving on his Segway! If I was a BG I would of been doing exactly this!
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Actually, as I think about it, uniformed gaurds are good. They are there for our benifit, it is the stores advanced warning system. When you here the loud bang, and see them fall it means something bad just happened and you should either find cover or draw. They are also for the burgerlars benifit, think of how much time, effort, and casing would be involved if they were undercover.I do always wonder what fm station they are listening to, with ear piece that has the coiled FBI looking wire coming down to their shoulder.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Johnny Law wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    Neither the owner, manager, nor anyone from the staff at any point attempted to discuss it with me.

    The two officers spoke to the owner or manager and returned to tell me that I had to leave my sidearm in my car or leave. I left.
    Another case of LEO operating outside the scope of their authority. If the LEO had wanted to actually observe the law themselves, they would have told the owners/managers of the establishment that they could not remove you from the premises nor intervene because until the persons in charge of that property had actually asked you to leave themselves, there is nothing, legally, the police can do.

    Good job standing up to them, Mainsail!
    We've been over this many times in other threads. If ANYONE who works for, owns, or manages the business (private property) asks an Officer to have a person leave the business, they must and will leave. The Officer is then acting as an agent for the business to enforce a private property law. If they refuse they are then trespassing, and can be subject to arrest if the Officer chooses to.

    Also you don't have to provide ID to get booked into jail, It just means you willnot be releaseduntil your identity is determined.
    "Every official interference with individual liberty and security
    is unlawful unless justified by some existing and specific
    statutory or common law rule; any search of private property will
    similarly be a trespass and illegal unless some recognized lawful
    authority for it can be produced; in general, coercion should only
    be brought to bear on individuals and their property at the
    instance of regular judicial officers acting in accordance with
    established and known rules of law, and not by executive officers
    acting at their discretion; and finally it is the law, whether
    common law or statute, and not a plea of public interest or an
    allegation of state necessity that will justify acts normally
    illegal."

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/in...name=800910MAJ

    Great caselaw.

    XD




  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    I read that to support my opinion? Am I correct?
    Well there are specific exclusions in the quote. If your opinion is rendered moot by one of the exclusions, then no.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    I read that to support my opinion? Am I correct?
    Well there are specific exclusions in the quote. If your opinion is rendered moot by one of the exclusions, then no.
    Intrigued what are the specific, exclusions.
    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)

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •