UPDATE: Kurk Kirby takes deal...

BigDave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lovenox said:

This isn't good...almost makes me want to stop Oc'ing. Just sayin...

Click to expand...

Venator said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

NavyLT said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...)

NavyLT said:

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.

Click to expand...

Cite?

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.

Kryteon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Tom was not charged but his 4th Amendment rights were sure violated and unless this goes before a high court LEOs will continue to violate our rights. If we as a group back Tom he should win this case and when he wins we all win. This is one place an official organazation could help.

I long for a day when those put in office to uphold the law do not break the law, by finding we the people guilty of crimes we do not commit as defined by the law they write. That in itself should be a crime.

Kirby did not have to give up his CPL.

I honestly think we are talking at cross purposes here since I indicated in my post that got challenged that 'rolla lost his CPL not Kurt, and that Kurt saved his by accepting a deal, and asking which made the most sense to the those not independently wealthy enough to pursue something like this through multiple levels of appeal hoping to get a win...

(The post was primarily to challenge those who don't think Kurt should have taken the deal...)

Hello my name is Kurk Kirby and I owe you all, though especially go-go and m1, an explanation of my actions on both the day this all began and the day it ended for me. Let me begin by saying to the both of you (gogo, M1) have my sincerest thanks and gratitude for everything that u did. Thank you. OK to business this is what really happened. On the day in question (sorry I have a flair for the dramatic lol) the offending party (Me in case anybody has gotten bored already) did commit the offence of removing his jacket on a hot day, exposing his fire arm. That’s all I did. Oh and buy charcoal for a bbq I never got to have. That was it the rest is pretty well know the primary witness (I’m not allowed to use his name for fear of harassment charges lol) from his mighty perch in his karate dojo became disturbed by the mere sight of this act did call the police and said offending party was sighted.

Ok that said here is how the rest of the last six months went. after the first court day I was offered a deferment agreement that required me to swear to primary witnesses statements (the Wyatt Earping and eye balling BS) take an NRA cert safety class and forfeiture of my weapon (I loved the XP pistol bit oh and to settle the score I was caring 36 rounds one short in each mag reporters can’t get anything right the first time lol) and pay a bigger fine. Thank to some great PI investigation into the primary witnesses background gave us some superb incite on his character and prior military record (didn’t look pretty I’ll tell you what and he's teach'n children OMGlol) so we of course declined this deal and returned one of our own and several motions to dismiss. Then came the unfortunate events of josh's case. And directly after they offered me back my basic deal plus a smallish fine. I didn’t have to agree to the primary witness’s allegations I had to agree that I scared someone and there by broke the law. I didn’t get the deferment time we wanted (6 months as opposed to a year) or time to get my firearm back (immediate to a year). And I didn’t have to take a NRA cert class (saves some $$$ there). Not too bad all things considered. Now the reasons I took the deal. MY FAMILY sums it up in two words. I like that LOL. With the things I deal with on a day to day basis with my son there is no room for me to be locked up (not to mention the absolute waste of 2.5 years on a criminal justice degree LOLLOL). As for me I am a law abiding gun owner that up to this point had a clean record. (Well except for my discharge from the navy for arguing with a Senior Chief oops LOL) so I guess that is it Thank you all again for all your ideas that I took from the boards secretly (shh don’t tell anybody LOL). If anyone has questions I will answer them all to the best that I can over the next few days months years whatever. I owe you all that much at least. Thank you again
Kirby

The Law

Other than the hard work, how come no one is talking about getting the law changed so it is crystal clear? What about the initiative process. Not enough gun owners to get the required signatures? Or am I just missing something?

the unfortunate truth is it takes deep pockets to change the law. it will take a well organized well funded test case oh and dont forget you are judged by people who didnt have the forsight to get out of jury duty.

brockXroberts said:

Other than the hard work, how come no one is talking about getting the law changed so it is crystal clear? What about the initiative process. Not enough gun owners to get the required signatures? Or am I just missing something?

Click to expand...

The amount of signatures required is based on a percentage of voters who voted in the previous regular gubernatorial election.

The current signature requirement is 241,153.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative and Referenda Manual.pdf

According to this 2008 article the number of cpl holders in WA. in 2007 was 258,000.
Does anyone have a more recent figure for cpls?

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/377385_gunpermits02.html

amzbrady said:

I long for a day when those put in office to uphold the law do not break the law, by finding we the people guilty of crimes we do not commit as defined by the law they write. That in itself should be a crime.

Click to expand...

Good luck on anyone who "writes the laws" writing one that might put him/her in jail, much less voting for one.

Now, here in Washington State there IS the Initiative process. Perhaps a "Tim Eyman" style campaign to put an Initiative on the ballot that tightens up the rules and makes punishment more certain.

Welcome...

Kurk,

Welcome to the forum. Hopeully I was able to provide enough of the truth to OCDO and the Columbian website. It is my belief that the facts and the law are in your favor.

END_THE_FED said:

The amount of signatures required is based on a percentage of voters who voted in the previous regular gubernatorial election.

The current signature requirement is 241,153.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative and Referenda Manual.pdf

According to this 2008 article the number of cpl holders in WA. in 2007 was 258,000.
Does anyone have a more recent figure for cpls?

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/377385_gunpermits02.html

Click to expand...

As of last Thursday it was:

275,052

The person I spoke with also noted that this number was approximately 9 months behind the actual....(the staff that does the data entry on issued permits is that far behind)....and while she assured me that they were compliant with the issue dates for applicants, I thought that it would pose an interesting situation for a LEO that is running a CPL check during a contact.

J

jt59 said:

As of last Thursday it was:

275,052

The person I spoke with also noted that this number was approximately 9 months behind the actual....(the staff that does the data entry on issued permits is that far behind)....and while she assured me that they were compliant with the issue dates for applicants, I thought that it would pose an interesting situation for a LEO that is running a CPL check during a contact.

J

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that many of those holding CPL's in Washington are known to spout the phrase "Concealed Means Concealed". Just because they hold a CPL doesn't automatically mean that they support Open Carry.

Any campaign to "rewrite" 9.41.270 via the Initiative Process will require a broad level of support. Even from people that don't own guns but recognize the those with them should not be subject to poorly written law and subjected to the whim's of a Police Officer or Prosecutor.

On that note, in order to get the broad level of support it will require that everyone who OC's to avoid "boneheaded" actions that cast negative images on gun owner/carriers in general.

amlevin said:

Good luck on anyone who "writes the laws" writing one that might put him/her in jail, much less voting for one.

Now, here in Washington State there IS the Initiative process. Perhaps a "Tim Eyman" style campaign to put an Initiative on the ballot that tightens up the rules and makes punishment more certain.

Click to expand...

One way to do it for sure, although it seems that the current law is pretty well integrated with many others, so I don't know what the language on the intiative would say to keep it simple...


Note however, that in the TNT today it stated that he personally loaned $250,000 to the effort to get it started.....and has collected a total of some 950,000 for support education and lobbying efforts (advertising on various venuesl, mailings, marketing firms)....plus paying folks to stand around in every Safeway and Albertsons parking lot for 7 months ahead of the deadline filing date, coordinators for them and staff to complete verification of signatures (which is why they try to get 25-50% above the minimum...not for support as much as anticipation that, that many names will be tossed)...and more.

I don't think a $35.00 annual membership to a future non-profit would get this accomplished....let alone the commitment to the long term effort required from a grass roots intiative of fellow posters.

The other avenue is to get a friendly legislator on the house and senate to draft a companion bill with language to amend the existing law and clarify the language. It is a two year process....if it is a non-contentious issue...

...also understand that a bill to amend the language in an existing law, opens up the entire law for review and amendment by anyone that can get a legislator to submit it in the process at either the committee level or when it gets put up onto the floor (of either) house for a vote and once it is released to the "process" the original sponsors have very little control on the outcome...then, if the companion bills are not concurrent with each other, they have to be reconciled and each body will cast their vote.....given that legislators like to avoid conflict at all costs...

...and while it is easier to knock down a bill with a big showing and lining up for testimonials at public hearings, it is much harder being on the other side and as such about 90% of the 4,000 bills that get introduced into the mix in Olympia every year die in committee, while the afflicted parties sort it out and reintroduce it next year....

.....it even has a name "the sausage grinder".

I would compare it to trying to shoot a 3" group in a paper target at 75 feet with a .22, .38 .45 .9mm, 2 wheel gun, 3 auto, three styles of blade sites (front only), and one shot each in succession...

There are folks that can do it, but they shoot a lot....in Oly they are called Lobbyists.....