RDShooter
New member
Freedom1Man,
Sorry the outcome was not what you wanted today.
-RD
Sorry the outcome was not what you wanted today.
-RD
If you have a license to drive a car, does that mean you are required to drive a car instead of walking, riding a bike or taking a bus?
Or, if you have a CDL (commercial driver's license), are you now required to only drive commercial vehicles now instead of driving a normal car? The judges logic is laughable.
There is nothing in any law here in Washington state that requires that you are required to carry concealed once you possess a CPL. A CPL gives you the OPTION to carry concealed and/or to carry LOADED in a vehicle. Key word there is OPTION, as in it is you the owner of the firearm that makes that decision not the government.
The judge in this case is adding an interpretation to the law that never existed. It is flat out a personal opinion. This judge needs to be removed from this case because the judge is showing a personal bias. If the judge will not remove themself from the case then I'm pretty sure that you have grounds for an appeal. Make the PA/DA prove you were in violation of the law by making them quote exactly what part of what law you were in violation of. They can't! The judge is not the one that has to do that and in fact is suppose to remain impartial. The judge is siding with the PA/DA on this issue and is in fact helping their case.
Plain language requires no interpretation. The law is clearly written and unambiguous thus needs no interpretation. The law states that you are exempt if you as the person in possession of the pistol are also in possession of a CPL. Nowhere does it say you are required to carry concealed.
RCW 9.41.070 only states what is required in order to lawfully obtain a CPL in this state. RCW 9.41.050 states clearly when you are required to be in possession of a CPL (which is only when carrying concealed or carrying loaded in a vehicle).
Again, this judge is off their rocker.
I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1182711.html
Shove that one up the judges @$$ and let him chew on it for a while. If he ignores it, you have grounds for an appeal.
Again... unambiguous = NO interpretation! None! If the judge is adding more to the letter of the law then is written then the judge is in trouble.
Sorry I did not call you, I had a long list of people to call to let them know what the verdict was.
The persecutor and two judges (Hightower and Bonner) all said that because 9.41.070 was listed in 9.41.300 that it could only mean that CC only was allowed.
The persecutor LIED his ass off. He kept saying that I was told to only CC there. I was only told that there were no weapons allowed, PERIOD.
The officer when asked how he confirmed that the person he talked to was who he said he was and had the authority to issue a trespass, he accepted a BUSINESS CARD as proof, no checking photo ID or making any phone calls. He also said that he NEVER even looked at the law nor had he even ASKED if the man who told him to trespass me had looked at the law.
In the video you can see an officer looking something up on his phone, (he was looking up the law noted on the sign), until the SGT came in and arrested me.
The 1 officer who was doing the right thing was forced to stop doing the right thing.
I've followed this case from the beginning, and the outcome was as I predicted: guilty.
Lessons learned: Don't allow yourself to be listed as the defendant on a criminal complaint when you can just as easily list the other party as defendant in a civil case. If the police ask you to leave under threat of arrest, then leave, even if they're wrong, then sue everyone. Make them defend their actions in civil court. Turn the tables. Spend your lawyer money in a different way but working towards the same goal . . . get it?
I've followed this case from the beginning, and the outcome was as I predicted: guilty.
Lessons learned: Don't allow yourself to be listed as the defendant on a criminal complaint when you can just as easily list the other party as defendant in a civil case. If the police ask you to leave under threat of arrest, then leave, even if they're wrong, then sue everyone. Make them defend their actions in civil court. Turn the tables. Spend your lawyer money in a different way but working towards the same goal . . . get it?
If I can take a bit of a bunny trail here is it even possible to be trespassed from a public place? If the reason for asking a person to leave (having a gun) is unlawful then the the staff would be committing a crime in forcing the person to leave and LEOs can do nothing either without getting sued for it.
Either ignore the ruling as unlawful or prosecute the judge for violating their oath to the Constitution. I suggest the latter.That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
Not that I disagree, but how does that work out in practice? No arrest, not much "damages".
The goal should not be to win damages. The goal should be to lead them by the nose to the proper understanding and application of the law.
Taking this particular case, what would the suit be for?
As a practical matter, this appears, on its face, to be true. But, it is not an axiomatic conclusion.Not that I disagree, but how does that work out in practice? No arrest, not much "damages".
I'm pretty sure I disagree with the judge on this one.That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
Can't prosecute the judge. Judges enjoy "absolute immunity" and cannot be sued for their conduct on the bench. Really. However, in Washington, they are subject to scrutiny by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and can be sanctioned for their conduct that violates their oaths of office (and other things, as well).Either ignore the ruling as unlawful or prosecute the judge for violating their oath to the Constitution. I suggest the latter.
I've followed this case from the beginning, and the outcome was as I predicted: guilty.
Lessons learned: Don't allow yourself to be listed as the defendant on a criminal complaint when you can just as easily list the other party as defendant in a civil case. If the police ask you to leave under threat of arrest, then leave, even if they're wrong, then sue everyone. Make them defend their actions in civil court. Turn the tables. Spend your lawyer money in a different way but working towards the same goal . . . get it?
How do you sue without standing?
That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
Can't prosecute the judge. Judges enjoy "absolute immunity" and cannot be sued for their conduct on the bench. Really.
rcw re convention centers . . .
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.