Advancing gun rights: common sense proposals

[OC for ME]

those sections only refer to "property" and not to a specific type of item as property. furthermore, the founders probably had "real property" in mind when they wrote those sections as opposed to "personal property"

If the Founders had "real property" in mind they would have used "real property" in the BoR. They used property because everything I own is my personal property. "Real property" is a government instituted term to make legitimate the taxation of me owning land. Hell, the government taxes my land a different rates based on how I use my land. My car is taxed. Some folks think this is OK, I do not. But, I don't want to get shot in the head fighting the government over property taxes.

 

[Whitney]

Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying

What follows is a re-write of RCW 9.41.270. Making a few meaningful changes strengthen the law and removes current ambiguity. By doing this it empowers the law abiding citizen as it clarifies for law enforcement the “gray” area of current law. Attorney's will no longer have to argue semantics regarding the term “unlawful” as it is now clear. I am trying to tye this to the thread over here.(OT-Clark-County-another-gun-charge)

1. Solutions shall not infringe upon law abiding citizens rights.
2. Solutions shall empower law abiding citizens, not municipalities or legislative bodies.



RCW 9.41.270

Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.



(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 manifests an intent to intimidate another person.

(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.


~Whitney

 

[Batousaii]

I had dabbled with a similar idea some years ago where I wrote...

Something like:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to aggressively and intentionally draw, point, or assertively handle 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 victimize an innocent person, or that intentionally and willfully jeopardizes the safety of other persons who are innocent in their capacities.

- I think eliminating the "warrants alarm" is imperative because it can be twisted to mean "causes alarm" by the progressives, and is often cited by ill-informed police officers that do not understand the base concept of "warrants". Intent would be to produce a clause that clearly defines and outlaws an intentionally criminal use of an arm (not just a gun), yet leaves clear leeway for legal use and carry, either openly, concealed, or someplace between. This wording also clears they way for displaying, drawing or accessing your weapon with defensive intent since the victims are defined as "innocent persons or innocent in their capacities". The end game should be to allow "good guys" the ability to defend themselves, while outlawing the display or use of an arm with a criminal intent (to scare or intimidate during commission of a crime).
- Although many here have motioned to simply eradicate .270, I think re-defining it's intent would work as well so long as it was aimed squarely at the criminal use, and not to curtail the LAC's ability to defend themselves, or carry their arms in a comfortable manner.

 

[Whitney]

How to get it introduced.

I had dabbled with a similar idea some years ago where I wrote...

- I think eliminating the "warrants alarm" is imperative because it can be twisted to mean "causes alarm" by the progressives, and is often cited by ill-informed police officers that do not understand the base concept of "warrants". Intent would be to produce a clause that clearly defines and outlaws an intentionally criminal use of an arm (not just a gun), yet leaves clear leeway for legal use and carry, either openly, concealed, or someplace between. This wording also clears they way for displaying, drawing or accessing your weapon with defensive intent since the victims are defined as "innocent persons or innocent in their capacities". The end game should be to allow "good guys" the ability to defend themselves, while outlawing the display or use of an arm with a criminal intent (to scare or intimidate during commission of a crime).
- Although many here have motioned to simply eradicate .270, I think re-defining it's intent would work as well so long as it was aimed squarely at the criminal use, and not to curtail the LAC's ability to defend themselves, or carry their arms in a comfortable manner.

I am inclinde to agree with your assesment, yet I wonder if it is strong enough to prevent another "Kirby" incidnet or anonymous call reporting a 19 year old with a gun.

There are a LOT of firearms bills carried over from the last session so it may be tough getting someone to take this on as new work. This was also discussed here a couple years ago with a lot of good research regarding intimidation laws.

I will email Matt Shea and see if he would be willing to do some work on this.


~Whitney

 

[Citizen]

SNIP guns are special, they're the only personal property mentioned in the constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects shall not be violated...(Fourth Amendment)

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I am inclinde to agree with your assesment, yet I wonder if it is strong enough to prevent another "Kirby" incidnet or anonymous call reporting a 19 year old with a gun.

There are a LOT of firearms bills carried over from the last session so it may be tough getting someone to take this on as new work. This was also discussed here a couple years ago with a lot of good research regarding intimidation laws.

I will email Matt Shea and see if he would be willing to do some work on this.


~Whitney

contact Mike Padden, the senate is far more likely to pass pro-legislation IMO at least going by composition.

the 19 year old's issue was 9.41.240 and not 9.41.270. that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects shall not be violated...(Fourth Amendment)

well fine.

I was meaning the personal property which was specifically protected by class for ownership. there's no write to keep and bear printing presses, there's a write the speak freely..... kinda along those lines. the constitution specifically protects a right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms themselves, it's a specific class of property with a protected right and not an inferred one. (although the anti side loves to confuse people into thinking otherwise)

 

[1245A Defender]

Geezzz!!!!!

well fine.

I was meaning the personal property which was specifically protected by class for ownership. there's no write to keep and bear printing presses, there's a write the speak freely..... kinda along those lines. the constitution specifically protects a right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms themselves, it's a specific class of property with a protected right and not an inferred one. (although the anti side loves to confuse people into thinking otherwise)

My gawd,, Eric!!! did you drink another beer??
We have RIGHTS not writes!!

The bill of RIGHTS enumerates at a minimum the things the government cant mess with,,
not ALL the things the government cant mess with!

I would like for you to argue, in any court, anywhere, anytime, that the government
can take a printing press from anybody, for any reason!

Just as the 2A protects all of our, keeping and bearing.
The first A protects all manner and forms of speech,
and ALL the ways that we communicate that speech!

 

[OC for ME]

well fine.

I was meaning the personal property which was specifically protected by class for ownership. there's no write to keep and bear printing presses, there's a write the speak freely..... kinda along those lines. the constitution specifically protects a right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms themselves, it's a specific class of property with a protected right and not an inferred one. (although the anti side loves to confuse people into thinking otherwise)

Property is used twice elsewhere. "Guns" is used once. Property, my guns, is more important. The Founders singled out guns cuz those dirty stinking Red Coats would take guns and nothing else.....until it was supper time that is. But the 2A is about government just as is the 4A and the 5A. Get to know what property means and its importance in our country then you may understand that all private property is held sacred, guns especially so.