• 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.

The PA is tainting the jury pool!

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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".
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.
 

jarhead1911A

New member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
539
Location
, ,
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
 

ridgerunner98570

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
34
Location
Darby Montana
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. :banghead:
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
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. :banghead:
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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. :banghead:
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.
 
Top