Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: UPDATE: Kurk Kirby takes deal...

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    UPDATE: Kurk Kirby takes deal...

    STORY

    A Vancouver man accused of openly carrying a gun in a way that witnesses said warranted alarm received a one-year diversion agreement this afternoon.
    If Kurk Kirby doesn’t break the law, pays a $485 fine and takes a one-time gun safety course in the next year, the charge of unlawful use of a firearm will be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, assistant city attorney Darren DeFrance said. In other words, the charge will be erased.

    <snip>
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    I was hoping he would fight it, but I understand why he would take this deal, after the verdict in w07rolla's case, and the reported sentence of "Fines, 5 days in jail (15 less then the pros requested and it starts on 12/26/10...two year anni) and ten days community service." And loss of CPL.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Fyi...

    Kirby was offered this deal last spring by the PA.
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    The deal looks a lot better now than it did back then.

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    These two cases have opened or brought to light that these anti-gun prosecutors a path to get a plea or conviction by going to a jury trial on a poorly worded law.

    It may have been the best thing for him, but not the cause.
    Last edited by BigDave; 10-13-2010 at 10:47 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    Or perhaps our opinion of what is "reasonable" and what would "warrant" alarm is different than that of the average person who doesn't carry a gun on a regular basis.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    This isn't good...almost makes me want to stop Oc'ing. Just sayin...

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    There are many here that open carry daily and have no negative contacts with law enforcement, it would make sense to follow their lead.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  9. #9
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    I wonder if the Maryland Online course will suffice..??

  10. #10
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    I wonder if the Maryland Online course will suffice..??
    LOL! I'm on that site right now as a matter of fact +1

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    None of these would stand up in either State Supreme Court or Federal Court. How can you declare a legal activity as warranting alarm when exercised?

  12. #12
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    None of these would stand up in either State Supreme Court or Federal Court. How can you declare a legal activity as warranting alarm when exercised?
    I guess the answer to why he took the "deal" instead of fighting it is



    The more you have the more "Justice" you can afford.

    Back in the '60's a common term for money was "bread". It coined the phrase:

    "Life is like a $h!t Sandwich. The more bread you have the less $h!t you have to eat".

    It's true when it comes to fighting laws like this person was charged under. It's going to take a campaign just like the ones in Washington DC, Chicago, and other cities where screwed up laws are being fought. Until there is a well funded "test case" that can go all the way if necessary, we are stuck with it. That is unless the Legislature decides to write some definitions to go along with RCW 9.41.270 and take individual interpretation out of the equation.
    "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?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I guess the answer to why he took the "deal" instead of fighting it is



    The more you have the more "Justice" you can afford.

    Back in the '60's a common term for money was "bread". It coined the phrase:

    "Life is like a $h!t Sandwich. The more bread you have the less $h!t you have to eat".

    It's true when it comes to fighting laws like this person was charged under. It's going to take a campaign just like the ones in Washington DC, Chicago, and other cities where screwed up laws are being fought. Until there is a well funded "test case" that can go all the way if necessary, we are stuck with it. That is unless the Legislature decides to write some definitions to go along with RCW 9.41.270 and take individual interpretation out of the equation.
    Kurt, I am guessing ran up against a financial wall, most of us would end up having to do the same thing. Each lose we have right now makes it harder to achive our goal of normalizing OC. We right now have the perfect case to back with Tom Brewster, lets all focus on giving Tom all of the financial support we can each afford. This is where a State Open Carry organization would do the most good. I believe fighting legal issues should be the focus of any state group. Putting on meets, Spokane, Willow Lake etc should remain just as it is.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    78

    Legal Defense Fund

    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Kurt, I am guessing ran up against a financial wall, most of us would end up having to do the same thing. Each lose we have right now makes it harder to achive our goal of normalizing OC. We right now have the perfect case to back with Tom Brewster, lets all focus on giving Tom all of the financial support we can each afford. This is where a State Open Carry organization would do the most good. I believe fighting legal issues should be the focus of any state group. Putting on meets, Spokane, Willow Lake etc should remain just as it is.
    Here's where I would financially support a Washington State Organization. One reason I don't OC any more than I do, is because I cannot afford a quilified gun rights attorney, fines, or jail time. More people may be willing to OC if they had some sort of legal support. About the only beauracracy needed would be one that sorts out which incidents deserve support, (legitimate rights violations), and which ones, well... don't.

    In Tom Brewsters case, I didn't think he was actually charged with anything??

    Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryteon View Post
    In Tom Brewsters case, I didn't think he was actually charged with anything??

    Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
    From what I have read, he hasn't. As I see it, any action in his case would be to get the Court to put an end to the "Stop and ID just because he has a gun and we don't know who he is" actions of many officers.
    "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?"

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    This isn't good...almost makes me want to stop Oc'ing. Just sayin...
    Then they win. That is their strategy, to wear you all down so you will comply with them. You can stop if you want, just saying.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  17. #17
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Then they win. That is their strategy, to wear you all down so you will comply with them. You can stop if you want, just saying.
    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
    -- Samuel Adams

    I think the finances were the issue here. Judges, attorneys, and courts all know that they just have to keep prolonging the issue and more money will be required to fight it. I was pulled over for something a while back, and I did not have my proof of insurance on me. The officer gave me a 500 dollar ticket for not having it! I went to court and said I did have insurance at the time, but I just didn't have it in my car. The lady at the front desk, who I told this to, said, "Oh alright, we will drop it." Then she said, "25 dollars please." I said, "what is the 25 dollars for?" Then she told me, "Court fees." I said, "I didn't even go to court! I just told you what happened, and you agreed to take care of it." She said, "Not my rules. 25 dollars please."

    I also had a ticket for breaking a park rule, which wasn't really a park rule, so I tried to take it to court. They ticketed me for 35 dollars and the court fees amounted to 55. I just payed the 35 because it was cheaper.

    Courts (or I should say, the Government) just want your money. It is no surprise to me that they made him pay a fine for this. The worst part is, they are dropping the charges BECAUSE he will pay a fine. In law, a fine is consequence of breaking a law. A bribe is dropping a charge for a fine. Totally unjust.

    As NavyLT said, we are 0/2 on this. Very unfortunate, but I will keep carrying: even if I have to raise funds to pay for a lawyer.

    Joe~
    Last edited by joejoejoe; 10-14-2010 at 03:19 PM. Reason: spelling

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by olypendrew View Post
    And loss of CPL.
    Isn't that strange? The crime they charge you with makes it illegal to exercise your right except in the manner they charged you with a crime for.
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Puyallup, ,
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryteon View Post
    Here's where I would financially support a Washington State Organization. One reason I don't OC any more than I do, is because I cannot afford a quilified gun rights attorney, fines, or jail time. More people may be willing to OC if they had some sort of legal support. About the only beauracracy needed would be one that sorts out which incidents deserve support, (legitimate rights violations), and which ones, well... don't.

    In Tom Brewsters case, I didn't think he was actually charged with anything??

    Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
    I'm with this guy. This is where a group that can do some sort of legal defense/fundraising can do some good.

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
    I'm with this guy. This is where a group that can do some sort of legal defense/fundraising can do some good.
    Legal funds as with any fund, who ever pays in is not a guarantee you will be supported in your time of need and only a few will pick and choose who is worthy of the cause.
    Then there is some will doubt if the funds are being properly disburse in their eyes, If a fund is setup do it individually and members will pick and choose what they do or do not support by their donations.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Legal funds as with any fund, who ever pays in is not a guarantee you will be supported in your time of need and only a few will pick and choose who is worthy of the cause.
    Then there is some will doubt if the funds are being properly disburse in their eyes, If a fund is setup do it individually and members will pick and choose what they do or do not support by their donations.
    All the more reason to have a "Mission Statement" or "Charter" in place before collecting funds. Having the criteria for support spelled out in advance can both head off disagreements on what/who is being supported but can also enhance fund raising as well.

    The "loosey goosey'er" the organization is the less it will accomplish. No focus, no plan, no progress.
    "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?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    This isn't good...almost makes me want to stop Oc'ing. Just sayin...
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Then they win. That is their strategy, to wear you all down so you will comply with them. You can stop if you want, just saying.
    They are organized, we are not.

    They can afford to wear us down, we cannot afford to wear them down (We use our own money to fight them - they use our money to fight back - something wrong there...)

    Until some group with deeper pockets and less to lose takes on this problem, individuals have to fight on their own with minuscule sporadic funding offered, and the chance of severely bad outcomes.

    The person in Vancouver who just lost is affected for life with the loss of CPL unless he can come up with sufficient funds and adequate legal support to win through appeal, with no guarantees - the person in the same jurisdiction who just settled gets to keep his CPL...

    Which is the logical way to go for someone who is not independently wealthy and can expect to get near zero help?

    Yeah.

    Sorry to see it settled this way, but I absolutely fully understand it.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  23. #23
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    One small correction... he loses his CPL for one year... not life.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.075

    RCW 9.41.075
    Concealed pistol license — Revocation.

    (1) The license shall be revoked by the license-issuing authority immediately upon:

    (a) Discovery by the issuing authority that the person was ineligible under RCW 9.41.070 for a concealed pistol license when applying for the license or license renewal;

    (b) Conviction of the licensee, or the licensee being found not guilty by reason of insanity, of an offense, or commitment of the licensee for mental health treatment, that makes a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm;

    (c) Conviction of the licensee for a third violation of this chapter within five calendar years; or

    (d) An order that the licensee forfeit a firearm under RCW 9.41.098(1)(d).

    (2)(a) Unless the person may lawfully possess a pistol without a concealed pistol license, an ineligible person to whom a concealed pistol license was issued shall, within fourteen days of license revocation, lawfully transfer ownership of any pistol acquired while the person was in possession of the license.

    (b) Upon discovering a person issued a concealed pistol license was ineligible for the license, the issuing authority shall contact the department of licensing to determine whether the person purchased a pistol while in possession of the license. If the person did purchase a pistol while in possession of the concealed pistol license, if the person may not lawfully possess a pistol without a concealed pistol license, the issuing authority shall require the person to present satisfactory evidence of having lawfully transferred ownership of the pistol. The issuing authority shall require the person to produce the evidence within fifteen days of the revocation of the license.

    (3) When a licensee is ordered to forfeit a firearm under RCW 9.41.098(1)(d), the issuing authority shall:

    (a) On the first forfeiture, revoke the license for one year;

    (b) On the second forfeiture, revoke the license for two years; or

    (c) On the third or subsequent forfeiture, revoke the license for five years.

    Any person whose license is revoked as a result of a forfeiture of a firearm under RCW 9.41.098(1)(d) may not reapply for a new license until the end of the revocation period.

    (4) The issuing authority shall notify, in writing, the department of licensing of the revocation of a license. The department of licensing shall record the revocation.
    Having not seen the papers, do we know if the loss of his CPL was due to forfeiture of his weapon, or if the loss of the CPL was do to a separate, independent part of the judgment?

    (I was assuming it was simply ruled he would lose it, but I could obviously be very, very wrong...)
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post

    He would not have lost his CPL only due to a conviction of violating 9.41.270 because revocation only occurs in that case after 3 convictions within a 5 year period.
    Cite?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    But 9.41.270 says

    That you lose your CPL if found in violation of subsection 1.

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    (2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

    (b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

    (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

    (d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

    (e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.
    "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

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
  •