Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Law Firm asks the Police to leave for Open Carry

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    "...our attorneys and police officers were just asked to leave a plaintiff’s firm for a deposition because the officers were carrying their weapons (in uniform). The firm has a no gun policy and said they had to give them up to attend the deposition. Our defense attorney is a former Marine and he came unglued I guess; the real irony is this is an outspoken civil rights firm in Seattle. I guess the only right they won’t argue for is the second one. Needless to say, there were no depositions today because the officers left."

    In an email from my wife describing an event that happened last week. I thought that this was very interesting. My undertanding is that my wife's firm is now looking to do the depostions at a neutral site and the officer's will still be able to carry.
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    Well, at least they are consistant.....no weapons...is no weapons...!

    Z
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    He was in uniform (meaning on duty) and was told to leave? Isn't that unlawful? If the officer is in the course of his duties, he can be armed. Seems fishy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
    They were if they were conducting official business.

  6. #6
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    I could be totally wrong, but if a business restricts the possesion of a weapon, then it does not matter...."official" use or not....a ban is a ban....unless they want to change the law....

    A peace officer is nothing more than a citizen with the right to carry a weapon, if I ban weapons, the the ban is to ALL!!!

    Z

    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    zekester wrote:
    I could be totally wrong, but if a business restricts the possesion of a weapon, then it does not matter...."official" use or not....a ban is a ban....unless they want to change the law....

    A peace officer is nothing more than a citizen with the right to carry a weapon, if I ban weapons, the the ban is to ALL!!!

    Z
    If a police officer is conducting official business, they can carry their firearm on whatever private property they want. I am assuming the police may not have been conducting official business.

    That's like saying a home owner has a right to tell an officer that he has to leave his firearm in his vehicle while he's responding to a 911 call to the house. If a police officer is not conducting official business, but simply grocery shopping, while in uniform, then yes, the business owner/representatives can tell him to leave his firearm in the car. The likelihood of that happening is slim to none though. A police officer is much more than just a citizen with a right to carry a weapon, considering we're ALL citizens with a right to carry a weapon. Police are exempt from many laws while on duty, and even many while off duty.

  8. #8
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    This is, in part, incorrect. The "official duty" must involve investigating or responding to a crime. Otherwise they have no implied right to be there anymore than you or I do.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    This is, in part, incorrect. The "official duty" must involve investigating or responding to a crime. Otherwise they have no implied right to be there anymore than you or I do.
    That is what I am talking about.

    On another note, they do have rights to be somewhere where a private citizen can not be. Many RCWs exempt law enforcement, both on and off duty to many things that are restricted to the general public. For example, carrying in a court, carrying on school property, etc.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Metal_Monkey wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
    They were if they were conducting official business.
    Incorrect.
    No, it's not incorrect at all. If an officer is conducting official business, specifically on site to where they're at, they may not be asked to leave because of their firearm.

    Like I said, it doesn't apply if a uniformed officer is shopping for groceries. However, if an officer is investigating a theft at said grocery store, the store representatives/management can not ask him to leave his firearm in his car. That's ridiculous.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    OK, since nobody else is going to ask...

    Who is the outspoken civil rights firmthat asked them to give up their guns?
    I may want to avoid them.
    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.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote:
    OK, since nobody else is going to ask...

    Who is the outspoken civil rights firmthat asked them to give up their guns?
    I may want to avoid them.
    MacDonald, Hogue & Bayless (MHB)
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
    They were if they were conducting official business.
    To help claryify...

    The officer's are represented by an insurance pool that represents the cities in Washington.

    They were conducting a deoposition for circumstances related to their job as LEO. The were for all purposes acting in an official capacity. They were to meet with the attorney's on the other side for a deposition. This is typically done at one of the two law firms. (The case at hand has nothing to do with firearms)

    The alternative is that the depositions will be done at another location at a later time.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    The following is from my friend from Kent PD

    Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

    If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
    If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

    Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..

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

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    The following is from my friend from Kent PD

    Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

    If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
    If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

    Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
    While this was an official function of the officer's job, the location was not relevant to conducting a deposition. The law firm invited the other side (lawyer and officer's) to their offices. Maybe they did this on purpose? Regardless the officer's were not conducting any official business (the law firm was not the site of a crime) that was sensitive to the place or time.
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    The following is from my friend from Kent PD

    Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

    If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
    If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

    Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
    Do you have any cites to back that up? Asking LEO rarely ends in a completely correct and accurate answer.

    You do realize that you are saying the owner of a business must give up his 4th amendment rights if a LEO is performing in official capacity, right?
    "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

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    The following is from my friend from Kent PD

    Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

    If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
    If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

    Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
    While this was an official function of the officer's job, the location was not relevant to conducting a deposition. The law firm invited the other side (lawyer and officer's) to their offices. Maybe they did this on purpose? Regardless the officer's were not conducting any official business (the law firm was not the site of a crime) that was sensitive to the place or time.
    I know. I agree with what you're saying for this situation. I'm just trying to get across to everyone who seem to think that a private business has the right to deny entrance to law enforcement who are actually carrying out their official duties, such as an investigation.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    The following is from my friend from Kent PD

    Any licensed establishment (if they are not licensed and are open for business they risk arrest anyway) must allow an on duty officer conducting official business complete access to the establishment. This include office and storage areas but not residential areas if the exist.

    If a uniformed officer is not conducting official business the store can ask that the officer leave or not come in.
    If on duty the officer cannot disarm himself.

    Private hospitals have been posting signs about no firearms for many years. All administrators quickly learned that does not mean on duty officers. Back in the 70's one administrator of a small hospital refused entry to an officer coming to interview a victim. The administrator was arrested and the prosecutor's office made an example of him. The word got out..
    Do you have any cites to back that up? Asking LEO rarely ends in a completely correct and accurate answer.

    You do realize that you are saying the owner of a business must give up his 4th amendment rights if a LEO is performing in official capacity, right?
    It's quite obvious. If a police officer is investigating a potential theft that has taken place at a retail grocery store, then he not only can be armed, but he has a DUTY to be armed, and the business has no say in that at all. I'm not saying that just any "official capacity" gives them the right and duty, but carrying out official business under official capacity, such as investigating a potential crime.

  19. #19
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Metal_Monkey wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    Was it private property? If so, the police don't have any special rights.
    They were if they were conducting official business.
    Incorrect.
    Cite?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post


    If someone from your home calls 911 to report domestic violence in the house (not toward you, but toward another resident in your home), do you think you have the right to tell the officer that he has to leave his firearm in the car while he conducts his investigation?

    Are you serious, or trolling?

  21. #21
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Doesn't requesting that a peace/police officer come to investigate a crime or give an official disposition imply that they want the officer to perform his duties in an official manner?

    Which is covered by a ton of RCW's under LEO exemptions?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    Doesn't requesting that a peace/police officer come to investigate a crime or give an official disposition imply that they want the officer to perform his duties in an official manner?

    Which is covered by a ton of RCW's under LEO exemptions?
    Not necessarily all of the time, given the example that I posted above.

    Or in a case where the business or private residence itself is under investigation, and the officer(s) have reasonable cause or a warrant.

  23. #23
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    killchain wrote:
    Doesn't requesting that a peace/police officer come to investigate a crime or give an official disposition imply that they want the officer to perform his duties in an official manner?

    Which is covered by a ton of RCW's under LEO exemptions?
    Not necessarily all of the time, given the example that I posted above.

    Or in a case where the business or private residence itself is under investigation.
    I was thinking along the lines of "I called 911 because I came home and someone's in my house, please help," and then trying to file a lawsuit because I didn't want the police officer to be armed in my home, even though I specifically requested aid from the police?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    killchain wrote:
    Doesn't requesting that a peace/police officer come to investigate a crime or give an official disposition imply that they want the officer to perform his duties in an official manner?

    Which is covered by a ton of RCW's under LEO exemptions?
    Not necessarily all of the time, given the example that I posted above.

    Or in a case where the business or private residence itself is under investigation.
    I was thinking along the lines of "I called 911 because I came home and someone's in my house, please help," and then trying to file a lawsuit because I didn't want the police officer to be armed in my home, even though I specifically requested aid from the police?
    That's an obvious one, but I'm using other examples as well, such as the case of the other individual living in your home filing a domestic violence report, and then you, the home owner/head of household, telling them no, you can't enter unless you disarm.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Also, to the person who said that Law Enforcement Officers have no more rights with firearms than we do as citizens, please review this.

    On every single firearm or weapons law, you'll see that Law Enforcement is exempt on all of it

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.a...&full=true

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •