• 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.

UPDATE: Kurk Kirby takes deal...

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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>
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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:

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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

stacks%2520of%2520money.jpg


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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I guess the answer to why he took the "deal" instead of fighting it is

stacks%2520of%2520money.jpg


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.
 

Kryteon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
78
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
Legal Defense Fund

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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

joejoejoe

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Vancouver, WA
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:

superdeluxe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Puyallup, ,
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top