Email from Costco tonight..

[maclean]

You should never carry a gun while under the influence of ANYTHING. That's just common sense.
But I don't see how the cops knew in a matter of nano seconds the victim was legally impaired while carrying a firearm.

I make no argument that the officers knew or didn't know.

I'm simply pointing out that someone who is stumbling around and joking about being wasted might also have impaired judgment and do something stupid.

 

[maclean]

Personally I think evacuating the store was absurd. "Lets get everyone in the parking lot and we will mow down the perpetrator in front of everyone, just try not to miss....."

It could be absurd, or not - depending on how many people you could get there and what sort of threat you were going to be facing.

Who came up with the idea? Security, or Metro?

 

[Bill Starks]

You are aware that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Nevada - AND Washington - under the influence of a narcotic, even if it is prescribed?

You can continue to say it isn't relevant all you want, the law disagrees. There is a reason the law disagrees, and it is called "being impaired."

In Washington the handgun may be immediately seized and forfeit under 9.41.098.

In Nevada, it's 202.257.

You will find NO exception for prescribed medications vs. non prescribed.

Arguing that someone under the influence of a narcotic analgesic "didn't matter because it was prescribed" ignores the law, ignores the effects of the drugs in question, and is terminally stupid.

Don't forget your "ANDs" and "ORs"

(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, AND who is under the influence of any drug OR under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;

 

[maclean]

Don't forget your "ANDs" and "ORs"

(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, AND who is under the influence of any drug OR under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;

I didn't forget. His gun was concealed.

If you want to be drunk and/or high in your house, place of business, etc. with your pea shooter, be blessed.

You're still going to be called stupid.

Edited to add: I can clearly articulate probable cause to believe you warrant alarm for the safety of others if you carry a firearm while wasted under 9.41.270.

Try arguing different.

 

[devildoc5]

You are aware that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Nevada - AND Washington - under the influence of a narcotic, even if it is prescribed?

You can continue to say it isn't relevant all you want, the law disagrees. There is a reason the law disagrees, and it is called "being impaired."

In Washington the handgun may be immediately seized and forfeit under 9.41.098.

In Nevada, it's 202.257.

You will find NO exception for prescribed medications vs. non prescribed.

Arguing that someone under the influence of a narcotic analgesic "didn't matter because it was prescribed" ignores the law, ignores the effects of the drugs in question, and is terminally stupid.

I am not saying that it is not illegal or immoral or just plain stupid. What I AM TRYING to say is that the fact he was on "opiates" is not an excuse to mow someone down. It should have ABSOLUTELY 0 relevance on the "shot". The things that SHOULD play into a shot are: Is there an IMMEDIATE danger? Is there an IMMINENT threat? Is the suspect complying with demands/orders? Have I given the suspect enough TIME to comply with orders?

I am not trying to monday morning quarterback this as I was NOT there, however I am just saying that everyone brings up the "he was high on drugs" argument like that in and of itself is enough justification to shoot him. I dont care if you agree or not but JUST because someone is high IS NOT justification to shoot them. End of story....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I didn't forget. His gun was concealed.

If you want to be drunk and/or high in your house, place of business, etc. with your pea shooter, be blessed.

You're still going to be called stupid.

Edited to add: I can clearly articulate probable cause to believe you warrant alarm for the safety of others if you carry a firearm while wasted under 9.41.270.

Try arguing different.

.....going to rationalize everything the LEO do matter how wrong.

I think you totally missed M1gunr's point.

 

[amlevin]

.....going to rationalize everything the LEO do matter how wrong.

I think you totally missed M1gunr's point.

Where do you see the rationalization?????

All I saw in Mclean's post was that anyone carrying while stoned or drunk, and outside your home/place of business was going to be viewed as Stupid. Certainly didn't attempt to justify any police officers actions.

His statement that he could make a case that anyone impaired would be a hazard to the public makes sense to me. Do you actually think it's OK to go out in public while impaired and do so while armed? If so, let us know when you plan on doing so. I'd rather not knowingly be around someone who is armed and only operating on a part of their brain.

 

[BigDave]

Mclean's post have been pretty spot on, I see some trying to rationalize in this thread but it is not him.

 

[maclean]

I am not saying that it is not illegal or immoral or just plain stupid. What I AM TRYING to say is that the fact he was on "opiates" is not an excuse to mow someone down. It should have ABSOLUTELY 0 relevance on the "shot". The things that SHOULD play into a shot are: Is there an IMMEDIATE danger? Is there an IMMINENT threat? Is the suspect complying with demands/orders? Have I given the suspect enough TIME to comply with orders?

I am not trying to monday morning quarterback this as I was NOT there, however I am just saying that everyone brings up the "he was high on drugs" argument like that in and of itself is enough justification to shoot him. I dont care if you agree or not but JUST because someone is high IS NOT justification to shoot them. End of story....

You and I agree that being stoned/wasted/UI is not reason to shoot someone.

I would make no such argument.

 

[maclean]

.....going to rationalize everything the LEO do matter how wrong.

I think you totally missed M1gunr's point.

I got his point, I was lazy with my cite.

Also, I haven't rationalized anything the LEO's in Clark County did.

I have pointed out this is not the holy grail shoot some of you have looked for. There appears to have been enough issues to go around, here.

 

[Tawnos]

I didn't forget. His gun was concealed.

If you want to be drunk and/or high in your house, place of business, etc. with your pea shooter, be blessed.

You're still going to be called stupid.

Edited to add: I can clearly articulate probable cause to believe you warrant alarm for the safety of others if you carry a firearm while wasted under 9.41.270.

Try arguing different.

Arguing different: The law does not say "when a gun is concealed" but "in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required." The law calls out those places in 9.41.300 as such:

(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

(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

Carrying concealed in a holster is not carrying in a place where a concealed pistol license is required, but in a manner, which is a different thing entirely (hence why it is called out explicitly in 270: manner, under circumstances, time and place). To meet the burden of 270, you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the manner which the firearm was being carried was unsafe (in an IWB holster), so that you could meet all three burdens. Yes, you could possibly successfully argue the circumstances in which he was carrying and time and place warranted alarm (since he was allegedly under the influence of drugs that altered his mental state, you'd have to prove it was to a degree that was unsafe). However, even then the law prescribes that the manner of carry must warrant alarm. If it weren't so damn vague we might have an idea what kind of manner that is, but a holstered pistol that is concealed was specifically referred to in Spencer as *not* being a manner that warrants alarm.

 

[maclean]

Arguing different.

Specifically, I referred to carrying wasted - not the concealed pistol license area requirement. I'll concede that. I have no idea what Nevada has to say about the matter, legally speaking.

As to the "wasted" part and .270:

Carrying a firearm while wasted is "in a manner and under circumstances that warrants alarm for the safety of others."

The time and place is right then, at the moment in time you are observed wasted and armed.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge, so of course there is always the argument that it might not be proven in court. Of course, that's a big risk to take with your CPL, if convicted.

My statement was that an officer can articulate probable cause for arrest on the misdemeanor committed in his or her presence under .270.

I will agree that .270 needs a re-write, as I have often stated elsewhere. I would even support an additional clause outside of .270 that talked specifically about "under influence" matters, leaving .270 cleanly referring to what we commonly call brandishing.

Could you imagine the hue and cry if an LEO failed to disarm someone obviously wasted and that person then killed someone unlawfully? It would be akin to putting a drunk back behind the wheel and saying "drive safe."

 

[Tawnos]

Specifically, I referred to carrying wasted - not the concealed pistol license area requirement. I'll concede that. I have no idea what Nevada has to say about the matter, legally speaking.

As to the "wasted" part and .270:

Carrying a firearm while wasted is "in a manner and under circumstances that warrants alarm for the safety of others."

I would argue that carrying while wasted is under circumstances that warrants alarm, but the manner of your carry is independent of that. Since the law was originally passed over fears the black panthers would carry, in hand, rifles and other firearms to political events, there is clear legislative intent/statutory construction that the three burdens were meant to cover manner of carry, circumstances in which carried, and the time and place carried. A gun carried by a person who leaves it concealed, does not put his hand on it, etc does not "warrant" alarm. Of course, the fact this vague bullshiat was upheld in Spencer muddies the water, since they both used the language to justify the conviction while simultaneously ignoring the language and its legislative history.

Could I have it my way, I'd alter the law to say the following:

(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[strike], 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.[/strike]:
(a) In a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that manifests an intent to intimidate another; or
(b) While having a blood alcohol concentration of .10 or higher as shown by analysis of a person's blood made pursuant to RCW 46.61.506; or
(c) While impaired by any intoxicating drug.

(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.
​

 

[maclean]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the "manner" prong.

I guess I'll put this another way to see if my position is clear.

There is no "manner" in which a wasted person can carry a firearm that would alleviate the concern.

I'll borrow (badly) from Seuss.

Not in his hand, not in his hat, etc. etc.

 

[devildoc5]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the "manner" prong.

I guess I'll put this another way to see if my position is clear.

There is no "manner" in which a wasted person can carry a firearm that would alleviate the concern.

I'll borrow (badly) from Seuss.

Not in his hand, not in his hat, etc. etc.

I can't believe someone ACTUALLY used Dr. Suess on this forum!!!

 

[maclean]

I can't believe someone ACTUALLY used Dr. Suess on this forum!!!

Humor is good for all of us!

 

[amzbrady]

I agree...

my letter to Costco
In light of the recent shooting at the Las Vegas Costco location, I wish to know what, if any training is being done with the employees and security personnel? Eyewitness accounts & the various news agencies have stated the whole issue started with a Costco employee and or one of its contractors. A terrible thing has happened which from all accounts was caused by confusion. The confusion started from the Costco employee and it snowballed from there and because of this, a man is dead.
In the many years I have been a Costco customer I have not had an issue with my weapon in your facility however if the issue should arise I want to know that your employees and contractors are trained on their individual state laws regarding weapons carry.
I know that Costco has a "No Weapons" policy and that policy is to only allow law enforcement to carry in its stores. However, until Costco can ensure the safety of me and my family on each and every visit, I will continue to be their first line of defense and not rely on your security guard calling 9-1-1 and waiting the some 10 minutes for them to arrive.
I hold concealed firearm licenses from 4 states, I carry a concealed weapon as well as Open Carry my weapon where allowed. I am an Open Carry Gun rights advocate (Washington State Researcher) who has spoken before many city councils and State Senators on gun rights. I do not wish for an incident in the Seattle area like what has happened in Las Vegas.

BUMP
Bill, have you had any reply from Costco on this?