Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: OC WARNING from WA DOL Firearms Unit

  1. #1
    alxryk
    Guest

    OC WARNING from WA DOL Firearms Unit

    From Tanaka, Bruce (DOL) BTANAKA AT dol DOT wa DOT gov
    To alxryk AT gmail DOT com
    Date Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT)

    "There is no RCW law that allows openly carrying a pistol legally or illegally. You must be aware of another state law RCW 9.41.270 referred to as the "intimidation law". By carrying a pistol openly, you may bring undue attention upon yourself. Anyone that feels threatened by the display your firearm openly can call the police and file a complaint; so be prepared to be scrutinized. If you are convicted of this charge, it's a gross misdemeanor."

    Bruce W. Tanaka
    Firearms Unit Program Manager
    Dept. of Licensing

    I now know that intimidation in RCW 9.41.270 is wide open to interpretation by the law and any onlooker who is inconvenienced by seeing a holstered handgun in public. Mr. Tanaka advised, "By carrying a pistol openly, you may bring undue attention upon yourself." This means there is no criteria for what constitutes intimidation in the open carry of a handgun in Washington. All a person who open carries need do is to simply SHOW UP. Open carry is legal in Washington? Think again. I have some sound legal advice. Open carry in Washington AT YOUR OWN RISK. You might find yourself arrested, jailed for one year, slapped with a $5,000 fine or all the above.
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 04:35 PM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    There is no RCW that makes wearing dress shoe's legal either....

    Why is he giving out legal advice? Poor advice at that....why did he respond to you in that manner? Perhaps we should report him to his superior?
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 06-16-2011 at 04:25 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Perhaps someone forgot to tell him that laws don't "make things legal". Laws only prohibit, not allow.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524
    That advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

  5. #5
    alxryk
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    There is no RCW that makes wearing dress shoe's legal either....

    Why is he giving out legal advice? Poor advice at that....why did he respond to you in that manner? Perhaps we should report him to his superior?
    Mr. Tanaka IS his superior. He did not classify this as legal advice. It was an introductory paragraph of a longer e-mail. I was inquiring if carrying a handgun locked in a handgun box off my body was considered a concealed handgun by Washington law that does not address this issue specifically. Yesterday, I asked his permission to post this paragraph. He has not responded.
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 04:32 PM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by alxryk View Post
    Mr. Tanaka IS his superior. He did not classify this as legal advice. It was an introductory paragraph of a longer e-mail. I was inquiring if carrying a handgun locked in a handgun box off my body was considered a concealed handgun by Washington law that does not address this issue specifically. Yesterday, I asked his permission to post this paragraph. He has not responded.
    No, he has someone he reports too, please post the entire email. You do not need the permission of a public official to post it as it is public information.
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    alxryk
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    No, he has someone he reports too, please post the entire email. You do not need the permission of a public official to post it as it is public information.
    The rest of that e-mail is irrelevant to this thread. Mr. Tanaka is the the Firearms Unit Program Manager working in the Washington Department of Licensing for CPL's. His e-mail address is at the top of this thread's post.
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 04:40 PM.

  8. #8
    alxryk
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I think Mr. McKenna's opinion holds a little bit more weight and influence than Mr. Tanaka's. The Washington Department of Licensing has NO say in open carry as open carry is an unlicensed activity.
    RCW 9.41.270 should be taken off the books and replaced with a definitive open carry law that protects all of us who do from being at the mercy of an overly excited onlooker and the judge or jury in a case that should never be brought against us. I don't know about you but I am not a member of the Black Panthers. The law is outdated. The importance of this message from the WA DOL is that it is a grim reminder that we open carry at our own risk. Whatever the comment by Mr. McKenna, I am afraid it will hold no weight in a courtroom. I want a guarantee. I don't want to feel vulnerable that at any time on any day, I could be arrested for simply showing up.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    Show me where it says that people have the right to "not feel" intimidated...

    Too many people think their feelings supercede Rights.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  10. #10
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Hef View Post
    That advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
    And, "not worth a continental"

  11. #11
    alxryk
    Guest

    First Mail to WA DOL

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I think Mr. McKenna's opinion holds a little bit more weight and influence than Mr. Tanaka's. The Washington Department of Licensing has NO say in open carry as open carry is an unlicensed activity.


    I must disagree. Mr. Tanaka's opinion regarding open carry is worth less than what alxryk paid for it, unless alxryk was using a free ISP to obtain it.
    That is true NavyLCDR. You need to know, however, that I did not ask his advice on open carry. This advice came out of nowhere. I felt like I was being reprimanded.

    My first mail to the WA DOL went like this.

    I have a question about what constitutes "concealed in any way on the body. (RCW 9.41.050)."

    For example, if I exercise my right as a Washington resident to openly carry in a secured holster without a CPL and then place my handgun off my body and into a gun case that is locked with a padlock, is this still considered to be on my body though it is not? Do I need a CPL to occasionally remove my handgun and place it off my body into a locked handgun case when I enter an public place where gun carry is prohibited?

    This is the only reason I would consider a CPL as I do not plan to ever carry my 9 mm concealed.

    Alex
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 04:58 PM.

  12. #12
    alxryk
    Guest

    RCW 9.41.270 The Racist Anti OC Law

    Quote Originally Posted by SpyderTattoo View Post
    Show me where it says that people have the right to "not feel" intimidated...

    Too many people think their feelings supercede Rights.
    My question SpyderTattoo is what constitutes intimidation? I found out that NOTHING constitutes intimidation as it applies to this law that is nothing more than a law against open carry. Let's ban together and remove this law from the books out of respect for the Black Panthers who should not be construed as intimidating. This law should be cited for racial discrimination. It was originally aimed at African Americans who were fighting for equal rights.
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 05:03 PM.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by alxryk View Post
    Anyone that feels threatened by the display your firearm openly can call the police and file a complaint; so be prepared to be scrutinized. If you are convicted of this charge, it's a gross misdemeanor."

    Bruce W. Tanaka
    Firearms Unit Program Manager
    Dept. of Licensing
    His "advice" does not even resemble the RCW he so references.

    (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.

    No Mr. Tanaka it is not "anyone" but rather all clauses of the RCW. In a manner (holstered handgun is not a manner that in and of itself is intimidating and lacks intent)

    No Mr. Tanaka it is not "anyone" but rather "under circumstances" that would be intimidating. Thus reflecting an additional condition that is articulable by an action and not someone's feelings.

    No Mr. Tanaka it is not "anyone" but rather a specific time and place required to fulfill these articulable facts.

    No Mr. Tanaka it is not "anyone" but rather a manifestation to intimidate someone that must be articulated to the reasonable person, the officer and the court system.
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 06-16-2011 at 05:20 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    If one is standing in a public place, looking very intimidating, but with a serene attitude, perhaps reading the paper or walking the dog or viewing nature from a park bench, there's no -intent- to intimidate. Maybe we need a SAF which support that intent.

    A little old lady, handgun on hip smiling sweetly doesn't intimidate even if she wants to.

    A big guy like Hulk Hogan, handgun on hip smiling sweetly intimidates even if he doesn't want to.

    According to this bozo, one can be arrested and the other presumably couldn't get arrested if they wanted to. You can't make a law which sees two people doing the same thing, and finds one arrestable and the other not. That's (obviously) why there must be SAF to intimidate.

    And if this guy arrested the little old lady, which he wouldn't he probably doubts his chances of getting a judge to believe that they were intending to intimidate. BUT, he doesn't care - he's using the LEO catch all of arrest 'em and let 'em pay to get out of it in court. That should be actionable as false arrest.

    IANAL
    $.02
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  15. #15
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871
    I think when the entire sentence is considered, and not just the word "intimidate", a reasonable person would consider Mr. Tanaka's words as irresponsible and incorrect. As do many government employees, he is only reading part of the law, the part that supports his view. He should be required to read AND understand all of it before he gives out information or advice.

    9.41.270

    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting 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.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  16. #16
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    Mr Tanaka

    this guy is so full of sh#t I can smell him through the eithernet cable.
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  17. #17
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    I am curious why a man from the DOT is trying to give advise on open carry for any reason other than maybe trying to discourage people from carrying when renewing there license. I would write him back another email explaining to him how the laws really work and inform him he is in violation of state preemption and can be held accountable to it in a court of law. I think his letter is a form of imtimidation, I'm sure there is a RCW or WAC against public officials intimidating the public

    RCW 9.41.290 State preemption.

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    I am curious why a man from the DOT is trying to give advise on open carry for any reason other than maybe trying to discourage people from carrying when renewing there license. I would write him back another email explaining to him how the laws really work and inform him he is in violation of state preemption and can be held accountable to it in a court of law. I think his letter is a form of imtimidation, I'm sure there is a RCW or WAC against public officials intimidating the public
    Gee. I wonder if his implied threats of "undue attention", arrest, fine, jail time, would constitute "Coercion" under WA's Coercion statute. Where a government official is offering a threat should one go about a perfectly legal activity. All the elements are there. Legal Activity, threat of confinement, monetary loss, damage to reputation, etc.

    Coercion.

    *** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 5045.SL) ***

    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.

    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:

    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).

    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.


    [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 9A.36.070.]

    ******************

    Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110

    (27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:

    (a) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

    (b) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

    (c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

    (d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

    (e) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

    (f) To reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threatened; or

    (g) To testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

    (h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding; or

    (i) To bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other similar collective action to obtain property which is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group which the actor purports to represent; or

    (j) To do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships;
    **********

    Gogodawgs- Do you think Rob McKenna might like to see a copy of this e-mail? Perhaps the "good legal advice" this guy referred to came from one of the AG's office people.
    Last edited by amlevin; 06-16-2011 at 06:51 PM.
    "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?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member ARADCOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW Washington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    317

    Thumbs down The rest of the story...

    Quote Originally Posted by alxryk View Post
    From Tanaka, Bruce (DOL) BTANAKA AT dol DOT wa DOT gov
    To alxryk AT gmail DOT com
    Date Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT)

    "There is no RCW law that allows openly carrying a pistol legally or illegally. You must be aware of another state law RCW 9.41.270 referred to as the "intimidation law". By carrying a pistol openly, you may bring undue attention upon yourself. Anyone that feels threatened by the display your firearm openly can call the police and file a complaint; so be prepared to be scrutinized. If you are convicted of this charge, it's a gross misdemeanor."

    Bruce W. Tanaka
    Firearms Unit Program Manager
    Dept. of Licensing

    I now know that intimidation in RCW 9.41.270 is wide open to interpretation by the law and any onlooker who is inconvenienced by seeing a holstered handgun in public. Mr. Tanaka advised, "By carrying a pistol openly, you may bring undue attention upon yourself." This means there is no criteria for what constitutes intimidation in the open carry of a handgun in Washington. All a person who open carries need do is to simply SHOW UP. Open carry is legal in Washington? Think again. I have some sound legal advice. Open carry in Washington AT YOUR OWN RISK. You might find yourself arrested, jailed for one year, slapped with a $5,000 fine or all the above.
    What we have here is a response. What we need to know is what was the question alxryk asked. And, WHY did he ask it?


    Oops! My bad. I hadn't read the part about "inquiring if carrying a handgun locked in a handgun box off my body was considered a concealed handgun".

    Still, I think the DOL doesn't have much to say about the enforcement of laws, particularly when they pertain to an unlicensed activity.
    Last edited by ARADCOM; 06-16-2011 at 06:53 PM.

  20. #20
    alxryk
    Guest

    Putting Me in My Open Carry Place

    Quote Originally Posted by ARADCOM View Post
    What we have here is a response. What we need to know is what was the question alxryk asked. And, WHY did he ask it?


    Oops! My bad. I hadn't read the part about "inquiring if carrying a handgun locked in a handgun box off my body was considered a concealed handgun".

    Still, I think the DOL doesn't have much to say about the enforcement of laws, particularly when they pertain to an unlicensed activity.
    Actually ARADCOM, Mr. Tanaka's introductory paragraph had nothing to do with a response to anything I wrote to him or his department. It was more like a scolding. As I said, it came out of nowhere. He seemed to be putting me in my open carry place. Notice that Mr. Tanaka refers to "openly carrying a pistol legally or illegally". What's that about?
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 07:06 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by alxryk View Post
    Whatever the comment by Mr. McKenna, I am afraid it will hold no weight in a courtroom. I want a guarantee. I don't want to feel vulnerable that at any time on any day, I could be arrested for simply showing up.
    Good grief. There are no guarantees in life. If you are that afraid of the government, then open carry is not for you. Get a CPL, hide your gun where nobody can see it, and go on about your business. The rest of us will continue to open carry without fear of the government.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    In Mr. Tanaka's world someone could call 911 because they feel threatened by the color of a persons skin, dress, size or unfriendly demenor. To think we pay these people to do the peoples business makes me sick every time I read stuff like this. Who is this guy boss he needs to get an earfull.

  23. #23
    alxryk
    Guest

    Intimidation Based on Race or Other Unsubstantiated Factors

    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    If one is standing in a public place, looking very intimidating, but with a serene attitude, perhaps reading the paper or walking the dog or viewing nature from a park bench, there's no -intent- to intimidate. Maybe we need a SAF which support that intent.

    A little old lady, handgun on hip smiling sweetly doesn't intimidate even if she wants to.

    A big guy like Hulk Hogan, handgun on hip smiling sweetly intimidates even if he doesn't want to.

    According to this bozo, one can be arrested and the other presumably couldn't get arrested if they wanted to. You can't make a law which sees two people doing the same thing, and finds one arrestable and the other not. That's (obviously) why there must be SAF to intimidate.

    And if this guy arrested the little old lady, which he wouldn't he probably doubts his chances of getting a judge to believe that they were intending to intimidate. BUT, he doesn't care - he's using the LEO catch all of arrest 'em and let 'em pay to get out of it in court. That should be actionable as false arrest.

    IANAL
    $.02
    Well said, Badger Johnson. Maybe you should add to your analogy, a large black man who is simply black and large. This law has been and will be abused by anyone who does not like my looks. I responded to Tanaka's statement to me,

    "What constitutes intimidation? My mere presence? My high profile identity? Surely I would have to display inappropriate behavior to be prosecuted by the "intimidation law". If there is no reasonable limit, any person who open carries in the state who is spotted by an overacting onlooker is made vulnerable to this law. Or does this only apply to certain people?"

    Alex
    Last edited by alxryk; 06-16-2011 at 07:15 PM.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Do you think the guy in the middle was intimidated?



    Well do you?
    Live Free or Die!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajetpilot View Post
    Good grief. There are no guarantees in life. If you are that afraid of the government, then open carry is not for you. Get a CPL, hide your gun where nobody can see it, and go on about your business. The rest of us will continue to open carry without fear of the government.
    +1 well said.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •