Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The PA is tainting the jury pool!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Prosecutor: Witnesses said Kirby looked ‘ready to draw’

    http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/m...d-ready-to-dr/



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

    Post imported post

    Already a thread on this topic.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/40666-11.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Let's go shopping all at the same time at this mall. I suppose I can call the poo poo ahead of time to learn exactly what constitutes "looking like Wyatt Earp", to make sure that I don't look like "Wyatt Earp".

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    Let's go shopping all at the same time at this mall. I suppose I can call the poo poo ahead of time to learn exactly what constitutes "looking like Wyatt Earp", to make sure that I don't look like "Wyatt Earp".


    Nope, I don't look at all like Wyatt Earp.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    By saying he looked like "wyat Erp" arn't they saying that he looks like a lawman? why would they call 911 with MWAG on a lawman?
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    539

    Post imported post

    i read the news article the part i dont get is that the DA persued charges over what some bystanders said? what makes them qualified to say anything at all?

    sounds to me like someone is looking to further there legal career and make an example out of a fellow OC'er

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Darby Montana
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    I think this law is very vague. I believe that once it reaches the Supreme Court of the State, it will be thrown out. The law relies on a person being upset for their safety when the see open carry. And with many of the anti-gun crowd today, the mere sight of a firearm makes them fear for their safety. That provision is unconstitutionally vague.
    Evil rarely comes in the form of monsters, but rather in the form of relatively normal people who, for reasons of careers, ideology, or desire for society's approval, are indifferent to the human consequences of their actions. Hannah Arendt

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    ridgerunner98570 wrote:
    I think this law is very vague. I believe that once it reaches the Supreme Court of the State, it will be thrown out. The law relies on a person being upset for their safety when the see open carry. And with many of the anti-gun crowd today, the mere sight of a firearm makes them fear for their safety. That provision is unconstitutionally vague.
    As has been posted 1000+ times before, the language is WARRANTS ALARM, not CAUSES ALARM. It doesn't matter if people are scared, just whether or not they have a good reason to be scared.

    Yes, it's probably unconstitutionally vague.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    antispam540 wrote:
    ridgerunner98570 wrote:
    I think this law is very vague. I believe that once it reaches the Supreme Court of the State, it will be thrown out. The law relies on a person being upset for their safety when the see open carry. And with many of the anti-gun crowd today, the mere sight of a firearm makes them fear for their safety. That provision is unconstitutionally vague.
    As has been posted 1000+ times before, the language is WARRANTS ALARM, not CAUSES ALARM.* It doesn't matter if people are scared, just whether or not they have a good reason to be scared.

    Yes, it's probably unconstitutionally vague.
    It is vague but I do not think it is unconstitutionally vague. It does not restrict the carrying of a firearm. It restricts the way you carry it.

    It is fairly narrow and is minimally intrusive. This is what the courts look at when passing it through the strict scrutiny test, which is what this law would go through because it deals with a fundamental right. They will also look at it and decide if a reasonable person, based on the wording of the law, could determine what types of manners, places, and times of carrying a firearm would warrant the alarm for the safety of other persons. I think the answer to this would be that a reasonable person could determine that.

    The appellate courts have already told us that it is not unlawful to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm even if it would shock people, this means the law is drawn with a specific intent. They have told us that walking fast with your head down carrying an AK47 with a magazine attached is not responsible. They have told us that carrying a rifle cradled in your arms and wrapped in towels is responsible.

    Now is looking menacingly, or eyeballing them, and placing your hand on your pistol responsible? This is the million dollar question at the moment and it will be answered, just give it time. Just do not expect the carry statute to be ruled unconstitutional for vagueness.
    "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

Posting Permissions

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