gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
-
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.
-
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.
Attorney's view
- Thread starter gogodawgs
- Start date
.45ACPaddy
Regular Member
imported post
Really? Bad guys are gonna automatically get rid of the open carrier first? Where's the evidence?
Oh wait, there IS none! He's just blathering on with more unfounded nonsense. :banghead:
Really? Bad guys are gonna automatically get rid of the open carrier first? Where's the evidence?
Oh wait, there IS none! He's just blathering on with more unfounded nonsense. :banghead:
6
69Charger
Guest
imported post
A bit off from the real world. We all do what makes seance in our own minds. What matters most is that we retain the right to protect ourselves with our 2nd amendment right to own arms.
Dave
The IWB and Open carry guy.
A bit off from the real world. We all do what makes seance in our own minds. What matters most is that we retain the right to protect ourselves with our 2nd amendment right to own arms.
Dave
The IWB and Open carry guy.
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
What we are clearly stated as doing is showing the average citizen (who is by no means anti-gun, that ordinary citizens carry guns regularly and that it isn't a problem. Once the average joe realizes that, he or she is more likely to dismiss the ravings of the anti-gun crowd as the idiocy that it is.
Who says in any discussion anywhere on this board that we are trying to change the minds of anti-gunners?
What we are clearly stated as doing is showing the average citizen (who is by no means anti-gun, that ordinary citizens carry guns regularly and that it isn't a problem. Once the average joe realizes that, he or she is more likely to dismiss the ravings of the anti-gun crowd as the idiocy that it is.
Glock17
Regular Member
imported post
I guess the Right to Keep and Bare Arms doesn't really much matter because this guy says so. I think its obvious that you can't make anyone feel comfortable around guns. But the 2nd ammendment isn't about comfort. Its about freedom. Cheers
I guess the Right to Keep and Bare Arms doesn't really much matter because this guy says so. I think its obvious that you can't make anyone feel comfortable around guns. But the 2nd ammendment isn't about comfort. Its about freedom. Cheers
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
Simple observation:
His tactical competency is in question and is in no way representative of real life engagements as a blanket.
Criminals do NOT as a practice seek out ANY sort of situation wherein a patron of a bank or other establishment they are about to rob, may put up any sort of fight.
Much like the waffle-house where this actually occurred, often criminals who are staking a place out will observe the individuals in the establishment, and if armed individuals are present, simply wait for the patrons to leave. It reduces complication in the planned out scenario.
The alternative, is to engage the individual immediately, bringing what could otherwise be a smooth operation, into an immediate clusterfu...thing.
Interestingly enough, the same thing rings true for combat engagements.
Major infantry elements were avoided during the initial invasion, while following supply units were ambushed.
This is tactical thinking in action, and in fact, the way it primarily occurs.
No criminal wants an equitable conflict with armed patrons. They want firepower superiority and tactical surprise. Either element is useless without the other.
Now as to which adds or detracts immediately from the equation:
OC immediately informs the would-be criminals that tactical superiority will be the only edge they may have. it also instills nervousness into their plans, by clearly and visibly being able to see, that a patron of a given establishment is armed.
CC leads the criminal to believe that there are indeed no armed patrons. It however, has no deterrence factor to crime on it's face. In fact, the conflict may come to a head typically, and only, once a dangerous situation has already been reached.
In a world where the majority are armed, only the unarmed, or perceived unarmed, are prey.
Simple observation:
His tactical competency is in question and is in no way representative of real life engagements as a blanket.
Criminals do NOT as a practice seek out ANY sort of situation wherein a patron of a bank or other establishment they are about to rob, may put up any sort of fight.
Much like the waffle-house where this actually occurred, often criminals who are staking a place out will observe the individuals in the establishment, and if armed individuals are present, simply wait for the patrons to leave. It reduces complication in the planned out scenario.
The alternative, is to engage the individual immediately, bringing what could otherwise be a smooth operation, into an immediate clusterfu...thing.
Interestingly enough, the same thing rings true for combat engagements.
Major infantry elements were avoided during the initial invasion, while following supply units were ambushed.
This is tactical thinking in action, and in fact, the way it primarily occurs.
No criminal wants an equitable conflict with armed patrons. They want firepower superiority and tactical surprise. Either element is useless without the other.
Now as to which adds or detracts immediately from the equation:
OC immediately informs the would-be criminals that tactical superiority will be the only edge they may have. it also instills nervousness into their plans, by clearly and visibly being able to see, that a patron of a given establishment is armed.
CC leads the criminal to believe that there are indeed no armed patrons. It however, has no deterrence factor to crime on it's face. In fact, the conflict may come to a head typically, and only, once a dangerous situation has already been reached.
In a world where the majority are armed, only the unarmed, or perceived unarmed, are prey.
imported post
Who's pretending?
I'm not on a mission to change anyone's mind concerning OC as I OC nearly each day in Tucson.
We see LOT'S of tourists from anti-gun states visiting Arizona. Now, the anti's among them may not like seeing us locals OC, but they STFU, then they go home.
Who's pretending?
I'm not on a mission to change anyone's mind concerning OC as I OC nearly each day in Tucson.
We see LOT'S of tourists from anti-gun states visiting Arizona. Now, the anti's among them may not like seeing us locals OC, but they STFU, then they go home.
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.
Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.
As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?
Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.
To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.
Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.
Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.
As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?
Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.
To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.
sempercarry
Regular Member
imported post
If that is the case, you would have to make a CPL free. Can you imagine being charged for a constitutional right? "Here is your speech license. that will be$100 and if you want to pay in full we will throw in your freedom of religion license at half cost".IMO concealed carry is the privilege ( you have to pay and pass a background check) open carry is the right (no license no cost no check).
Right Wing Wacko
Campaign Veteran
imported post
sempercarry wrote:
sempercarry wrote:
That is one of the reasons Newspapers are exempt from Washington Sales Tax. The state cannot tax free speech. Why margazines are taxed I do not know... perhaps because they allow newspapers to not be taxed they can argue there is a legal venue that is not taxed.
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
I completely disagree with Bob. I think no one should take his view on gun rights as an attorney seriously anyway. He has shown to not have a decent grasp on gun rights in my opinion. Besides that fact we, in Wa. do have a clear and concise right to OC because there is not a law that makes it unlawful and the productive reasons for doing so were apparent in the Wright-Rossi report, of which he has apparently no read.
Bob, I would like to know where, in either constitution, it states that the government has the ability to restrict how I bear arms? I can't seem to find it.
I completely disagree with Bob. I think no one should take his view on gun rights as an attorney seriously anyway. He has shown to not have a decent grasp on gun rights in my opinion. Besides that fact we, in Wa. do have a clear and concise right to OC because there is not a law that makes it unlawful and the productive reasons for doing so were apparent in the Wright-Rossi report, of which he has apparently no read.
Bob, I would like to know where, in either constitution, it states that the government has the ability to restrict how I bear arms? I can't seem to find it.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
heresolong wrote:
+1 I have seen this happen.
Oh and I also have changed the mind of an anti by simply carrying. She even agreed to go to the range and shoot and now has worked her way up to the point of considering a .22 for personal carry.
heresolong wrote:
+1 I have seen this happen.
Oh and I also have changed the mind of an anti by simply carrying. She even agreed to go to the range and shoot and now has worked her way up to the point of considering a .22 for personal carry.
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
deanf
Regular Member
imported post
I'm supposed to know who Bob Warden is?
I'm supposed to know who Bob Warden is?
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
deanf wrote:
deanf wrote:
He is the attorney from Kent who filed suit against the Seattle City Parks gun ban and lost based on Constitutional grounds.
deanf
Regular Member
imported post
Based on the argument proceeding that statement, it follows that we cannot say with legal certainty that we have a right to ride a bicycle on a public street.
Absurd on it's face.
Based on the argument proceeding that statement, it follows that we cannot say with legal certainty that we have a right to ride a bicycle on a public street.
Absurd on it's face.
Jayd1981
Regular Member
imported post
In our system of law for something to be illegal there must be a law prohibiting the action or item. I'm not even a lawyer and I know that.
Since there is no law (in Washington) prohibiting open carry, it must then be considered legal.
In our system of law for something to be illegal there must be a law prohibiting the action or item. I'm not even a lawyer and I know that.
Since there is no law (in Washington) prohibiting open carry, it must then be considered legal.
Machoduck
Regular Member
imported post
The Washington Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't state whether OC or CC is protected. However it does guarantee the right. The state government guaranteed the right of open carry when they established a charge for a CPL because rights can't be charged for. Therefore the state itself is guaranteeing the the right to OC.
MD
The Washington Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't state whether OC or CC is protected. However it does guarantee the right. The state government guaranteed the right of open carry when they established a charge for a CPL because rights can't be charged for. Therefore the state itself is guaranteeing the the right to OC.
MD
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
People on this forum know that Warden and I have tangled on a lot of different issues involving the whole Seattle parks debacle. He is at least *partially* correct. There are some things that are left out so that he can prove a point.
We need to differentiate two different constitutional questions: The 2nd via the 14th amendment, and A1S24 of our state constitution.
First is the fact that as of right now, the current federal lawsuits challenging carry bans and "may-issue" are focusing currently on the very existence of whether "right to carry for personal protection" even exists outside of one's home. They are not, at this point, focusing on methods of carry, fees, CPZ's, and other associated stuff. The reason for this is to get as many cases in front of the Federal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS to get the floor for carry, and not be bogged down on other issues, and it specifically reserves those arguments for those other issues for a later case.
Second is the existence of Article 1, Section 24. The case law on the whole "open versus concealed" situation is rather thin. The reason for this is because for the last 50 years, in order to carry loaded in one's car, you needed to get a CPL, which is relatively cheap, doesn't require training or hassle. No one wants to sue when the license is so easy to get. It's not a situation like with someone who would be traveling to Denver (CO) and they can't get a reciprocal license recognized nor can they open carry in Denver, so they must sue the county of Denver to issue a license which they refuse to issue.
Is it unconstitutional to ban all loaded carry in one's car without a CPL? I think so. The question, of course, is whether a state or federal judge will agree with my point of view. Unfortunately, going after things in federal court for most of the issues in this state is a non-starter. Justice Richard Sanders wrote an excellent opinion for the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Sieyes which will allow us to go after some of the contoured issues of carry (CPL/LOC at 18) first in the state courts. The opinion is very strong, with the provisions of the opinion directly stating "We keep our powder dry for another day". Go after CPL18/LOC for 18-21 for a legitimate law abiding type rather than a criminal like Sieyes was. Then go after the fees since they charge a fee for exercising a constitutional right to carry in one's car.
If they rule in our favor, and strike down the fee, you think the state is going to continue the mandatory licensing system? No, they won't. They'll repeal RCW 9.41.050 and leave the licensing system in place and recharge a fee, but since it's optional, it would not be unconstitutional.
People on this forum know that Warden and I have tangled on a lot of different issues involving the whole Seattle parks debacle. He is at least *partially* correct. There are some things that are left out so that he can prove a point.
We need to differentiate two different constitutional questions: The 2nd via the 14th amendment, and A1S24 of our state constitution.
First is the fact that as of right now, the current federal lawsuits challenging carry bans and "may-issue" are focusing currently on the very existence of whether "right to carry for personal protection" even exists outside of one's home. They are not, at this point, focusing on methods of carry, fees, CPZ's, and other associated stuff. The reason for this is to get as many cases in front of the Federal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS to get the floor for carry, and not be bogged down on other issues, and it specifically reserves those arguments for those other issues for a later case.
Second is the existence of Article 1, Section 24. The case law on the whole "open versus concealed" situation is rather thin. The reason for this is because for the last 50 years, in order to carry loaded in one's car, you needed to get a CPL, which is relatively cheap, doesn't require training or hassle. No one wants to sue when the license is so easy to get. It's not a situation like with someone who would be traveling to Denver (CO) and they can't get a reciprocal license recognized nor can they open carry in Denver, so they must sue the county of Denver to issue a license which they refuse to issue.
Is it unconstitutional to ban all loaded carry in one's car without a CPL? I think so. The question, of course, is whether a state or federal judge will agree with my point of view. Unfortunately, going after things in federal court for most of the issues in this state is a non-starter. Justice Richard Sanders wrote an excellent opinion for the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Sieyes which will allow us to go after some of the contoured issues of carry (CPL/LOC at 18) first in the state courts. The opinion is very strong, with the provisions of the opinion directly stating "We keep our powder dry for another day". Go after CPL18/LOC for 18-21 for a legitimate law abiding type rather than a criminal like Sieyes was. Then go after the fees since they charge a fee for exercising a constitutional right to carry in one's car.
If they rule in our favor, and strike down the fee, you think the state is going to continue the mandatory licensing system? No, they won't. They'll repeal RCW 9.41.050 and leave the licensing system in place and recharge a fee, but since it's optional, it would not be unconstitutional.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
gogodawgs wrote:
He also called ahead and informed the police he would be carrying? :banghead::banghead::banghead:.
LOL.....
gogodawgs wrote:
He also called ahead and informed the police he would be carrying? :banghead::banghead::banghead:.
LOL.....