• 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.

Just an idea

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
This is EXACTLY where a "formal organization" would be most effective. I am trying to be more open minded about this. To be fair, there are instances where being a formal organization would clearly be advantageous.

Correct. And I see a formal organization doing very little of what the core group of OCers have already done in Washington. Rather I see the formal group doing the things we wish we could do, the things we need resources to do, the things that take a person or two 60 hours a week year round to do...

What this group has done on this forum (see Deros links and history) will continue to get done and is a very powerful statement to the community.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Correct. And I see a formal organization doing very little of what the core group of OCers have already done in Washington. Rather I see the formal group doing the things we wish we could do, the things we need resources to do, the things that take a person or two 60 hours a week year round to do...

What this group has done on this forum (see Deros links and history) will continue to get done and is a very powerful statement to the community.

A formal organization could make a very powerful statement in Olympia. Gogo, Deros, M1Gnr( spelling)and others have already been doing this long before I joined this forum. I don't see that changing; correct me if I am wrong. A formal organization would give those in Olympia a focus point, a contact point. If we hope to effect change for all Washington carriers we need to present a unified front to those who can help our cause. I'm sure someone else has mentioned this, I am probably paraphrasing someone else, but it bears repeating. History has borne out that organized groups of people always accomplish more than individuals working separately. Where would we be today if our Founding Fathers had not gotten organized? They certainly would not have beaten the British and forged a nation without organization. We have enemies today that are just as determined to take our rights away from us. THEY are organized; we need to be also if we are to fight them effectively. We need to have our voices heard where it counts, in Olympia, and wherever else it can make a difference. I am beginning to see this organization as an addition to what we are already doing, not a replacement. We need people who are well versed in the law to represent us to law enforcement, in Olympia, etc. We also need people to continue to OC in public, attend meets, set up social events, etc. It is not either/or, we need both.
 

joejoejoe

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Vancouver, WA
I suspect more than a few days....no one is in Olympia this time of year. However, we would be smart to find a small caucus of friendly legislators and schedule a meeting with a well thought out presentation.

Now this I would be up for. I will spend the next couple of days into researching when and how to get something like this going. Ill get back to you once I figure something out.

Joe~
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
Now this I would be up for. I will spend the next couple of days into researching when and how to get something like this going. Ill get back to you once I figure something out.

Joe~

I wouldn't mind being there to share my experience if anyone thinks it might help.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
I do have something along this line I am undertaking.If my plan comes together then I will put it out here.If it does come to fruition I have in mind some folks I'll ask to help .If it doesn't I'll back the truck up and start over.I should know in a few days.And you don't even have to use resources to pay me a salary.I have all the time in the world I can put into this.To try and set something up to use resouces that quite possibly could be used for legal etc to pay a salary or salaries is way premature and in light of how well we have done to date without it isn't nessesary.
Anyway I will keep you posted as I work this out.I have already lit some fires.
 

joejoejoe

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Vancouver, WA
I do have something along this line I am undertaking.If my plan comes together then I will put it out here.If it does come to fruition I have in mind some folks I'll ask to help .If it doesn't I'll back the truck up and start over.I should know in a few days.And you don't even have to use resources to pay me a salary.I have all the time in the world I can put into this.To try and set something up to use resouces that quite possibly could be used for legal etc to pay a salary or salaries is way premature and in light of how well we have done to date without it isn't nessesary.
Anyway I will keep you posted as I work this out.I have already lit some fires.

Well definitely keep me posted. I am more into getting the law changed than getting a lawyer. :)

Joe~
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Amz,

Over on the "organization" thread you pretty much came out against a formal organization; at least that is what I gathered from your comments. On this thread you are complaining that we just sit around and do nothing. Does anyone besides me see the inconsistency of that? I am not trying to be critical, just trying to understand how you could complain that nothing gets done and at the same time be against an organization that could very well get those things accomplished. I would be interested in hearing your comments about it.

Ruby, what inconsistancy. I still dont think we should need an organization. I see it as some feel they need an organization because some are being harrased, and detained, and arrested for legally carrying a firearm as our state law says we can. Like JoeJoe and Amvelin, I think we need to change the wording of the law to be more definite. Sure maybe we need to be organized, not to be part of an orginization (at least not one where someone is going to profit). I dont think we need an organization for us all to come together and sign a petition. If the law was clear and concise, any infractions of the law should be on the individual.

Originally Posted by Squeak
I'd like to get someone(GoGo.Trigger Doc) to go to Oly with me and talk to a couple of our elected ones and explain to them what we really face. I have talked to Jan Angel and Derek Kilmer before. Different issues, tho. They will give us some time for a brief talk. Any ideas?

Wasnt Rob Mckenna supposed to show at one of the Open Carry meets? What ever happened with that?

EDIT: for typing to fast and not proofreading.
I typed
To bad Poo or now Mr green jeans has taken the initiative to try to get the law passed for adults his age to be able to carry. I cant wait till he either get the age changed and can carry or just comes of age to carry, then he can focus on being able to carry without LEO harrasment.

Sorry Poo.

I didnt mean too bad... there were two thoughts and part of one dissapeared and too bad landed in front of another thought. It was supposed to be Too bad more 18 year olds dont get on board with poo, and to say that Poo has taken the initiative.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Amz,

First I want to make it clear I am not attacking you. In a previous post, you posted that you thought it was a shame that no one had figured out how to pool resources and get some of these laws changed. You were complaining about how we sat around every night, yakking on the computer and nothing was getting done. Yet when someone comes up with the idea to form an organization to do these very things, you react negatively and won't support it. Please tell me how that is consistent with your desire to see things change, to see laws clarified, etc.

In case you haven't noticed some people on the forum have all ready been doing these things on their own, at their own expense. Things that we all have benefitted from or will benefit from.

Second, NO ONE has said that ANYONE would be paid ANYTHING! I think people are getting a little ahead of themselves. You yourself said that you would like to see resources pooled to effect change, then you back pedal when someone suggests a way to do that. How long would you hang in there and continue to work for change, spend you own hard earned money, and not be appreciated when you want to organize so more people can be involved and contribute their talents?

Third, just about anything you do today to effect change, especially in a political arena is going to take some money to do. That is why people get together behind a common purpose and pool their resources (as you yourself suggested) to effect the change they want to see happen. If you do not trust the people who are VOLUNTEERING their time and money to handle whatever money is entrusted to them, don't contribute, it's that simple. But in today's world, like it or not, it takes money and people working together to get anything done. I also think it is selfish of people to let a few do all the work and bear the financial burden and at the same time benefit from that work. See my post # 22, it is I think. Our enemies ARE organized; if we want to stand a chance of keeping our rights, we have to organize too.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Snippity do da day....

Amz,

First I want to make it clear I am not attacking you.

Thank you Ruby, no one likes to be attacked

In case you haven't noticed some people on the forum have all ready been doing these things on their own, at their own expense. Things that we all have benefitted from or will benefit from.

Thank you Ruby, I hadnt noticed...

There a few that put alot of time into writng letters, following up on them, and initiating meets to prove a point. I see alot of great minds here and I think if they could get together, they could put an end to alot of the illegal detainments.
 

Squeak

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
827
Location
Port Orchard,
[Wasnt Rob Mckenna supposed to show at one of the Open Carry meets? What ever happened with that?
I don't know.I do know that I have talked to him 1 on 1 and he was open for discussion. I just think that before we circle the wagons, we should smoke the peace pipe.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Snippity do da day....

Amz,

First I want to make it clear I am not attacking you.

Thank you Ruby, no one likes to be attacked

In case you haven't noticed some people on the forum have all ready been doing these things on their own, at their own expense. Things that we all have benefitted from or will benefit from.

Thank you Ruby, I hadnt noticed...

There a few that put alot of time into writng letters, following up on them, and initiating meets to prove a point. I see alot of great minds here and I think if they could get together, they could put an end to alot of the illegal detainments.


"I see alot of great minds here and I think if they could get together, they could put an end to alot of the illegal detainments."

That is exactly what they are trying to do by getting organized, but you say you won't support it. This is exactly what I mean by your thinking being inconsistent. You would like to see something done, but you object to people getting organized to do it. I am really curious now, honestly, about what it is exactly that you object to .
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
I've been trying to figure out how to say this without sounding like a naysayer of some sort, but since I can't figure out any way to do it that someone can't "misunderstand" I'll just go for it and hope for the best.

First off, I do believe the RCW does need to be changed to be much more clear. Maybe all it would take is the addition of a simple statement in .270 that clearly states the difference between warranted alarm and alarm. I dunno.

What I want to caution about is the possibility of any negative changes happening (as opposed to positive) once the RCW is opened up for change and the heavily organized "anti's" start beating their breasts and wailing about how frightened they are.

I don't know how to prevent "the other side" from ramming THEIR changes through instead of getting the clarifications we would want.

Please be careful, and protect your flanks - and mine.

<donning Nomex underwear and body armor> :uhoh:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I've been trying to figure out how to say this without sounding like a naysayer of some sort, but since I can't figure out any way to do it that someone can't "misunderstand" I'll just go for it and hope for the best.

First off, I do believe the RCW does need to be changed to be much more clear. Maybe all it would take is the addition of a simple statement in .270 that clearly states the difference between warranted alarm and alarm. I dunno.

What I want to caution about is the possibility of any negative changes happening (as opposed to positive) once the RCW is opened up for change and the heavily organized "anti's" start beating their breasts and wailing about how frightened they are.

I don't know how to prevent "the other side" from ramming THEIR changes through instead of getting the clarifications we would want.

Please be careful, and protect your flanks - and mine.

<donning Nomex underwear and body armor> :uhoh:

Yea I thought of this too but I think with the moment of gun movement and recent court rulings (barring those in Vancouver) we could probably push for "constitutional" carry.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Tomas,

I don't think you are being a naysayer at all, it's a legitimate concern. Things may not go the way we want them to; or we may get the clarification that we want. One thing is for sure: it's not going to change for the better if we don't try. The antis certainly don't quit trying. I'm sure there were antis around when all these regulations were first put in place, but it still happened, we still have very good gun laws here in Washington.

I would like to see a law on the books that one state has, can't remember which one. where it is not a crime if you display your weapon in order to ward off an attack. South Carolina has a law that if you are acquitted in a self defense case you cannot be sued in civil court. I would like to see that law on our books as well. We are fortunate that we have a state AG who has a favorable view towards gun owners. Also, I think our state preemption is a blessing; I feel sorry for people who live in a state where they have to know the gun laws everytime they cross a county line or go to a different town.

Life is a risk, always has been, always will be. We can cower in fear of what might happen, or we can confidently work for what we want. I have spent entirely too much of my life living in fear; I won't do that anymore. The campaign to strip us of our rights is relentless, we have to be also.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
Montana

Tomas,

I don't think you are being a naysayer at all, it's a legitimate concern. Things may not go the way we want them to; or we may get the clarification that we want. One thing is for sure: it's not going to change for the better if we don't try. The antis certainly don't quit trying. I'm sure there were antis around when all these regulations were first put in place, but it still happened, we still have very good gun laws here in Washington.

I would like to see a law on the books that one state has, can't remember which one. where it is not a crime if you display your weapon in order to ward off an attack. South Carolina has a law that if you are acquitted in a self defense case you cannot be sued in civil court. I would like to see that law on our books as well. We are fortunate that we have a state AG who has a favorable view towards gun owners. Also, I think our state preemption is a blessing; I feel sorry for people who live in a state where they have to know the gun laws everytime they cross a county line or go to a different town.

Life is a risk, always has been, always will be. We can cower in fear of what might happen, or we can confidently work for what we want. I have spent entirely too much of my life living in fear; I won't do that anymore. The campaign to strip us of our rights is relentless, we have to be also.

Ruby,...is this it? It's a beaut!

[size=Additional Bill Links][/size]PDF version




HOUSE BILL NO. 228

INTRODUCED BY K.KERNS, ANKNEY, ARNTZEN, BALYEAT, BENNETT, BLACK, BLASDEL, BONIEK, R.BROWN, T.BROWN, CAMPBELL, CURTISS, GALLUS, HAMLETT, HENDRICK, HINKLE, HOVEN, INGRAHAM, JACKSON, JONES, KOTTEL, MCGEE, MEHLHOFF, MILLER, MORE, RANDALL, ROUNDSTONE, SMITH, SONJU, VANCE, WARBURTON



AN ACT PRESERVING AND CLARIFYING LAWS RELATING TO THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS; AMENDING SECTIONS 45-3-103, 45-8-321, AND 46-6-502, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.



WHEREAS, the Legislature declares that:

(1) the right of Montanans to defend their lives and liberties, as provided in Article II, section 3, of the Montana Constitution, and their right to keep or bear arms in defense of their homes, persons, and property, as provided in Article II, section 12, of the Montana Constitution, are fundamental and may not be called into question;

(2) the use of firearms for self-defense is recognized within the right reserved to the individual people of Montana in Article II, section 12, of the Montana Constitution;

(3) self-defense is a natural right under section 1-2-104, MCA, and is included in sections 49-1-101 and 49-1-103, MCA;

(4) the lawful use of firearms for self-defense is not a crime or an offense against the people of the state;

(5) in a criminal case in which self-defense is asserted, the burden of proof is as provided in [section 10];

(6) in self-defense, the use of justifiable force discourages violent crime and prevents victimization; and

(7) the purpose of [sections 1 through 3] is to clarify and secure the ability of the people to protect themselves.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:



Section 1.No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.



Section 2.Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption.

(1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.

(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

(3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.



Section 3.Investigation of alleged offense involving claim of justifiable use of force. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have or is alleged to have involved justifiable use of force, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony concerning the alleged offense and that might support the apparent or alleged justifiable use of force.

Section 4.Section status of this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.

Status of this Bill | 2009 Legislature | Leg. Branch Home
This bill in WP 5.1 | All versions of all bills (WP 5.1 format)
Authorized print version w/line numbers (PDF format)
[ NEW SEARCH ]


Prepared by Montana Legislative Services
(406) 444-3064
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
First off, I do believe the RCW does need to be changed to be much more clear. Maybe all it would take is the addition of a simple statement in .270 that clearly states the difference between warranted alarm and alarm. I dunno.

I've been mulling over the same thought for a couple of days now. Repealing 9.41.270 in its entirety is probably a "non starter" in the Legislature for now. However, what about the addition of a simple statement in the list of exceptions? Something like:

"subsection (1) shall not apply to the carry of a holstered firearm absent any other prohibited actions"

or:

"a holstered firearm, absent any prohibited actions in subsection (1) shall not in itself be considered sufficient to warrant alarm"

Those are merely my first thoughts on this and I'm sure that others could add to it. As I see it, it would be easier to slip wording like this into the existing law and still leave the anti's something. I don't think anyone here wants to see it perfectly legal to carry a firearm in an irresponsible or intimidating manner so leave that part. Just make it perfectly clear that just carrying a firearm in a holster, visible or not, is not in itself sufficient to warrant alarm. That should take away this "tool" that police officers are relying on to do their "stop and ID's".

I also had the idea of using the Initiative process to accomplish this. Unfortunately, it might be that this November's election may make that very difficult for the next couple of years. As I understand, the signature requirement is based on a percentage of voters who voted in the last general election. If the turnout is as high as expected in two weeks, one will have an extremely high hurdle in order to get the proposal on the ballot. Waiting until after a "ho hum" election would take at least two years. Rather than initiative then it would be more sensible to put the full court press on individual legislators. Start with the newly elected and also those in key positions that could effect the change. Leave the parts that make sense for the "Anti's" and possibly catch some of them sleeping.

Now for others thoughts on this (I'm going for more coffee).
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
Ruby,...is this it? It's a beaut!

[size=Additional Bill Links][/size]PDF version





Section 1.No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.



Section 2.Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption.

(1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.

(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

(3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.



Section 3.Investigation of alleged offense involving claim of justifiable use of force. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have or is alleged to have involved justifiable use of force, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony concerning the alleged offense and that might support the apparent or alleged justifiable use of force.
The Montana bill is pretty good witha couple of exceptions.

Sections 1 and 3 look good.
Section 2(1), the part that states "Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon" needs to be clarified that open carry is a constitutional right. The way it is worded makes it appear to be that this law is granting that right.

Section 2(2) looks good.

Section 2(3) need to go away completely, or be rephrased to the complete opposite.

I've been mulling over the same thought for a couple of days now. Repealing 9.41.270 in its entirety is probably a "non starter" in the Legislature for now. However, what about the addition of a simple statement in the list of exceptions? Something like:

"subsection (1) shall not apply to the carry of a holstered firearm absent any other prohibited actions"

or:

"a holstered firearm, absent any prohibited actions in subsection (1) shall not in itself be considered sufficient to warrant alarm"

Those are merely my first thoughts on this and I'm sure that others could add to it. As I see it, it would be easier to slip wording like this into the existing law and still leave the anti's something. I don't think anyone here wants to see it perfectly legal to carry a firearm in an irresponsible or intimidating manner so leave that part. Just make it perfectly clear that just carrying a firearm in a holster, visible or not, is not in itself sufficient to warrant alarm. That should take away this "tool" that police officers are relying on to do their "stop and ID's".

I also had the idea of using the Initiative process to accomplish this. Unfortunately, it might be that this November's election may make that very difficult for the next couple of years. As I understand, the signature requirement is based on a percentage of voters who voted in the last general election. If the turnout is as high as expected in two weeks, one will have an extremely high hurdle in order to get the proposal on the ballot. Waiting until after a "ho hum" election would take at least two years. Rather than initiative then it would be more sensible to put the full court press on individual legislators. Start with the newly elected and also those in key positions that could effect the change. Leave the parts that make sense for the "Anti's" and possibly catch some of them sleeping.

Now for others thoughts on this (I'm going for more coffee).

amlevins approach is probably the most likely change that could be accomplished with the current legislature, and would be a great improvement to 9.41.270.
 
Top