Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Deceptive signs..

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Deceptive signs..

    So throughout the last couple of days, I have visited a few different locations, and have found some deceptive signs.

    1) I was at the Kent Station. On the digital message board that provides the time, a message scrolled across that read "No Illegal weapons or firearms allowed"

    2) At the King County Public Health Office, there was a sign near the front door, with a picture of a firearm and a circle and slash through it, with chapter 1 of RCW 9.41.270. Then in between the firearm picture, and the RCW, it said something like "Unless allowed by law".

    Way to go, King County. Try and fool the law abiding armed citizens that they can't have their lawfully carried firearm with them while doing business at these locations.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    "Serial Misinformation"

    is what I call this level of misdirection.

    The same is on the light rail, no "ilegal" weapons.
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Misinformation, misdirection and hassle factor are the three most basic tools of the anti-gun minded when they cant directly effect carry and ownership by passing laws.

    I think Americans for the most part have been wising up to those tactics, but as you have probably noticed if you have talked to the average Joe & Jane America, those tactics have taken their toll on the psyche of the citizenry.

    I am constantly amazed even among my fellow military members, how many wrong perceptions are held. Half of these guys & gals even OWN guns, and they have no clue. Some of them even carry them in daily work life, but wouldn't know where to start for carry in daily life.

    To get anyone carrying at all from among these folks is a minor miracle in and of itself.

    We just have to keep on keeping on, and make sure we are twice as educated on the laws and facts then our strongest opponents.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    So throughout the last couple of days, I have visited a few different locations, and have found some deceptive signs.

    1) I was at the Kent Station. On the digital message board that provides the time, a message scrolled across that read "No Illegal weapons or firearms allowed"

    2) At the King County Public Health Office, there was a sign near the front door, with a picture of a firearm and a circle and slash through it, with chapter 1 of RCW 9.41.270. Then in between the firearm picture, and the RCW, it said something like "Unless allowed by law".

    Way to go, King County. Try and fool the law abiding armed citizens that they can't have their lawfully carried firearm with them while doing business at these locations.
    When a person decides to carry a firearm it's to their benefit to learn and understand the laws that will now affect them. There are a lot of people that merely "strap it on" and go out in public with a new sense of power. These people are not only a danger to themselves but a danger to others as well.

    Those who take the time to learn the laws will know that these signs don't apply to them. Those that don't understand the laws about carrying a firearm are often better off leaving it home. In most cases they are the ones that end up displaying or shooting their firearm when they shouldn't which brings down heat on the rest of the informed and law abiding citizens.

    I look at signs like this as if they said "No Spitting". If I'm not spitting, they don't apply to me.
    "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?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I disagree, laws should make sense, how is somebody who straps a firearm on and goes about their business any more or less dangerous than somebody who learns the "letter" of the law?

    We need to get rid of laws that make a right a burden.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    I think he just meant, that if you carry a gun, you should familiarize yourself with the laws surrounding your gun. Still, not everyone is going to know the exact wording of the law, and these signs are going to be very deceptive to a lot of gun owners.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    I think he just meant, that if you carry a gun, you should familiarize yourself with the laws surrounding your gun. Still, not everyone is going to know the exact wording of the law, and these signs are going to be very deceptive to a lot of gun owners.
    If so, why would he include "danger to himself and others".

    And if it is because of the potential encounters that may occur, those encounters would be from people who themselves are trying to interpret or follow the current messed up laws.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    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
    If so, why would he include "danger to himself and others".

    And if it is because of the potential encounters that may occur, those encounters would be from people who themselves are trying to interpret or follow the current messed up laws.
    The reason I included this statement is that there ARE people out there that don't know the "rules of engagement" for Self Defense. Some will wave a firearm around in order to intimidate others and a few of those get shot (therefore they were a danger to themselves). Others don't just wave them around to intimidate, they actually shoot people when they were not justified in doing so. Examples of both show up regularly in the news.

    I agree that there are "messed up laws", the most egregious being RCW 9.41.270 which allows far too much latitude in interpreting what "warrants" concern.

    There's no excuse for those that just feel they can "go for the gun" without having any understanding that they can only do so when they have a reasonable fear that their life, or the life of another, is at risk.

    It is the responsibility of those who carry to understand the laws, like it or not.

    As for signs, if they understand the laws then they know which signs apply. The ones that don't are just something that takes up good window space.
    "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?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The reason I included this statement is that there ARE people out there that don't know the "rules of engagement" for Self Defense. Some will wave a firearm around in order to intimidate others and a few of those get shot (therefore they were a danger to themselves). Others don't just wave them around to intimidate, they actually shoot people when they were not justified in doing so. Examples of both show up regularly in the news.

    I agree that there are "messed up laws", the most egregious being RCW 9.41.270 which allows far too much latitude in interpreting what "warrants" concern.

    There's no excuse for those that just feel they can "go for the gun" without having any understanding that they can only do so when they have a reasonable fear that their life, or the life of another, is at risk.

    It is the responsibility of those who carry to understand the laws, like it or not.

    As for signs, if they understand the laws then they know which signs apply. The ones that don't are just something that takes up good window space.
    Those examples are rare, most people who "strap" on are doing so because they feel the responsibility of protecting life. Rules of engagement is a self defense class thing, not really a state law thing, I feel neither one is necessary for one to exercise their rights.

    I will still stand by my position. I am not willing to infringe on liberty for the illusion of safety.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    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
    Those examples are rare, most people who "strap" on are doing so because they feel the responsibility of protecting life. Rules of engagement is a self defense class thing, not really a state law thing, I feel neither one is necessary for one to exercise their rights.

    I will still stand by my position. I am not willing to infringe on liberty for the illusion of safety.
    By no means am I calling for any "infringement", merely pointing out that it's the individuals responsibility to learn what the law is that affects their carrying and using a firearm. That should be just common sense.

    As for "rare", not according to our local paper. We seem to have an incident or two every week or two where some bozo waves a gun around while driving a car, while arguing in a public place, or as in recent times, shooting someone in the @$$ because he was panhandling in a fast food restaurant and wouldn't leave the "shooter" alone.

    Every incident like these casts a shadow on those who legally carry and behave whether we like it or not.
    "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?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I see where you are coming from and I made sure to study up so I wouldn't get in trouble. (still didn't stop the cops though)

    What I am saying is the laws it self should be common sense. I don't think we need a law that says waving your gun around like a bozo is illegal, that is common sense and is covered already under things like reckless endangerment.

    And there is no law that says that, it is covered under Warrants Alarm which we can already see how some zealous prosecutors and cops and public officials are trying to twist that into meaning something it doesn't.

    Just like there is no law that specifically says I can't wave my boiling hot coffee around in a throng of people, I would be liable for causing damage/harm to someone if I burnt someone. It is just common sense not to do it. That is my position.

    But now you limit can arrest and detain/prosecute people for drawing weapon even when warrented (like Sigfan), if he didn't have a recording of what happened he would have been up S*&t creek without a paddle.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,138
    I support SVGs comment that laws should be "common sense". If a law is written as to not be understood by those who must obey it is not a law but an excuse for more lawyers.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    I support SVGs comment that laws should be "common sense". If a law is written as to not be understood by those who must obey it is not a law but an excuse for more lawyers.
    Correct it should also just make sense, you should be able to strap on a pistol, and carry it everywhere in a responsible manner, without fear of breaking a law you didn't take time to read.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •