Even the AG office has it wrong...

[Vitaeus]

Thanks Rapgood, that second link is a great explanation of how the State Courts can establish different standards of conduct in regards to rights/civil liberties. I t is a good example of the Washington State Constitution providing greater protections than the Federal Constitution in regards to privacy and firearms, specifically.

 

[slapmonkay]

I just got off of the phone with Susan Pierini, Assistant Attorney General to Rob McKenna. She has had a license to practice law for 24 years.

She held that WA was not an Open Carry state due to the 9.41.270 statue (alarming individuals would be a violation). She further stated that if I were to open carry, I would be putting myself at legal risk. I countered her position with WA Supreme Court ruling State v. Maciolek and WA Appeals Court ruling State v. Spencer, I also mentioned some key statements from State v. Casad (unpublished). I even went on to say how some members here have pictures with Rob McKenna while open carrying with several SPD around and nothing happened. She seemed to not be aware of the Open Carry movement in WA.

Due to her stance on Open Carry, my original question to which I had sent mail to AGO was not resolved. I encouraged her to review the cases previously given, she asked for the correct spellings so she could look into them.

 

[gogodawgs]

I just got off of the phone with Susan Pierini, Assistant Attorney General to Rob McKenna. She has had a license to practice law for 24 years.

She held that WA was not an Open Carry state due to the 9.41.270 statue (alarming individuals would be a violation). She further stated that if I were to open carry, I would be putting myself at legal risk. I countered her position with WA Supreme Court ruling State v. Maciolek and WA Appeals Court ruling State v. Spencer, I also mentioned some key statements from State v. Casad (unpublished). I even went on to say how some members here have pictures with Rob McKenna while open carrying with several SPD around and nothing happened. She seemed to not be aware of the Open Carry movement in WA.

Due to her stance on Open Carry, my original question to which I had sent mail to AGO was not resolved. I encouraged her to review the cases previously given, she asked for the correct spellings so she could look into them.

And let's say a dozen or so training bulletins issued by law enforcement throughout the state....

 

[Difdi]

Why what?

Why what with what?

The why question is obviously referring to the text quoted above it. By not quoting it too, you strip meaning. Just like I did by doing the same with your post.

 

[slapmonkay]

And let's say a dozen or so training bulletins issued by law enforcement throughout the state....

I did fail to mention this during our phone conversation. However, I did include it in my follow-up email correspondence with her that I wrote immediately after our phone conversation so that she got the correct cites. Thanks!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

EMN has conflated federal court hierarchy with state court hierarchy.

Please read:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational.../CourtStructure/StructureOfFederalCourts.aspx
http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational...erstandingFederalAndStateCourtsCaseStudy.aspx

Well it goes without saying IANAL

But I thought U.S. district court rulings were binding on state courts in that district no?

 

[gogodawgs]

Well it goes without saying IANAL

But I thought U.S. district court rulings were binding on state courts in that district no?

Why would they be? They are a ruling on a federal law/code. Not on a state law.

Appellate courts are where state rulings may be challenged based upon the federal law and the federal constitution.

 

[Alpine]

I just got off of the phone with Susan Pierini, Assistant Attorney General to Rob McKenna. She has had a license to practice law for 24 years.

She held that WA was not an Open Carry state due to the 9.41.270 statue (alarming individuals would be a violation). She further stated that if I were to open carry, I would be putting myself at legal risk. I countered her position with WA Supreme Court ruling State v. Maciolek and WA Appeals Court ruling State v. Spencer, I also mentioned some key statements from State v. Casad (unpublished). I even went on to say how some members here have pictures with Rob McKenna while open carrying with several SPD around and nothing happened. She seemed to not be aware of the Open Carry movement in WA.

Due to her stance on Open Carry, my original question to which I had sent mail to AGO was not resolved. I encouraged her to review the cases previously given, she asked for the correct spellings so she could look into them.

I phoned in to the McKenna campaign today to complain that Hannah was not getting back to me as promised, I was re-directed to someone named "Adam" who I was promised would get back to me today or tomorrow.

How ironic will this be if this woman's boss issues a written statement supporting to keep WA an OC state when she said that it wasn't one? As soon as I get the statement from the McKenna campaign you can feel free to call her back and tell her about it.

 

[rapgood]

I just got off of the phone with Susan Pierini, Assistant Attorney General to Rob McKenna. She has had a license to practice law for 24 years.

She held that WA was not an Open Carry state due to the 9.41.270 statue (alarming individuals would be a violation). She further stated that if I were to open carry, I would be putting myself at legal risk. I countered her position with WA Supreme Court ruling State v. Maciolek and WA Appeals Court ruling State v. Spencer, I also mentioned some key statements from State v. Casad (unpublished). I even went on to say how some members here have pictures with Rob McKenna while open carrying with several SPD around and nothing happened. She seemed to not be aware of the Open Carry movement in WA.

Due to her stance on Open Carry, my original question to which I had sent mail to AGO was not resolved. I encouraged her to review the cases previously given, she asked for the correct spellings so she could look into them.

24 years? Doing what? (it's a trick question: her area of expertise is "Administrative/Regulatory, Government, Health and Litigation]") It appears to me that most of the members of this list are one helluva lot farther ahead on understanding the federal and state constitutions and state statutes than she is.

Sigh... Some attorneys spout off glib legal analyses without researching the question first. Perhaps for them it's SMO. For the rest of us, it's called malpractice. It's one thing to disagree about how a law should be interpreted. But, it's entirely another to just shoot from the hip based upon little or no research. It's precisely that type of behavior that perpetuates bad interpretations of the law that get law-abiding folks charged with bogus claims of violating .270, and winds up wrongly putting them in jail. Suppose she is the "authority" that an unknowing prosecutor calls for an opinion when deciding whether or not to charge someone with a .270 violation? Now, someone with authority to make prosecuting decisions and seriously affect peoples lives has a completely wrong understanding of the law. Instead, slapmonkay (who, fortunately, already has a good understanding of the law) is educating her and isn't even get paid for it!

 

[gogodawgs]

I did fail to mention this during our phone conversation. However, I did include it in my follow-up email correspondence with her that I wrote immediately after our phone conversation so that she got the correct cites. Thanks!

Did she say anything about The Picture (with her boss and I)?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

24 years? Doing what? (it's a trick question: her area of expertise is "Administrative/Regulatory, Government, Health and Litigation]") It appears to me that most of the members of this list are one helluva lot farther ahead on understanding the federal and state constitutions and state statutes than she is.

Sigh... Some attorneys spout off glib legal analyses without researching the question first. Perhaps for them it's SMO. For the rest of us, it's called malpractice. It's one thing to disagree about how a law should be interpreted. But, it's entirely another to just shoot from the hip based upon little or no research. It's precisely that type of behavior that perpetuates bad interpretations of the law that get law-abiding folks charged with bogus claims of violating .270, and winds up wrongly putting them in jail. Suppose she is the "authority" that an unknowing prosecutor calls for an opinion when deciding whether or not to charge someone with a .270 violation? Now, someone with authority to make prosecuting decisions and seriously affect peoples lives has a completely wrong understanding of the law. Instead, slapmonkay (who, fortunately, already has a good understanding of the law) is educating her and isn't even get paid for it!

+1

 

[slapmonkay]

Did she say anything about The Picture (with her boss and I)?

No

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No

I would let the issue go myself, she's not in charge of prosecuting anyone for a gun related offense, and most prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officers seem to be well aware of open carry's legal status. It's obvious this woman is only projecting what she wants to believe is true since there is no support for her theory.

However she may be in a twisted sort of way right. We've seen cases (w7Orolla aka Josh) comes to mind in where the individual was cited, charged, convicted, and then lost his appeals over a .270 case. It was a jury trial in which a jury decided open carry was that way. If prosecuters are able to push a case like that to a jury then appeals court and make it stick, that does give us reason to worry. Anti-gun P.A.'s are likely to begin using Josh's case to push their personal agenda, and they're going to start prosecutions and unless we get a published Casad-type opinion we may have our rights suppressed through prosecutorial misconduct and the approval of activist judges.

Most Judges, P.A.s and LEOs seem to respect open carry to some extent, but there are crooked ones out there, And I worry what will happen if they begin following Vancouver's lead with Josh's case.

 

[slapmonkay]

I would let the issue go myself, she's not in charge of prosecuting anyone for a gun related offense, and most prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officers seem to be well aware of open carry's legal status. It's obvious this woman is only projecting what she wants to believe is true since there is no support for her theory.

I disagree with your interpretation in the importance of clearing this up. She is responsible for replying to any firearm relates questions coming into the AGO from citizens. The misinformation that she gives out could hurt our overall cause.

How about if a citizen writes in and asks if open carry is legal, since they have seen someone open carrying. They get routed to her and she replies with her canned response of no due to 9.41.270. The citizen then calls the police the next time they see someone open carrying in the store and say the AGO says its illegal. So on and so forth.

I would rather the AGO give no information/opinion at all rather than misinformation.

With that said, I don't think I am going to get any further than I have. They more or less have requested I stop sending them emails regarding it.

Ms. Pierini has your second message, but as I indicated, I’m not seeing a need or a purpose for ongoing conversations about this.

 

[rapgood]

However she may be in a twisted sort of way right. We've seen cases (w7Orolla aka Josh) comes to mind in where the individual was cited, charged, convicted, and then lost his appeals over a .270 case. It was a jury trial in which a jury decided open carry was that way.

Josh who? Was the decision published? Case number and court?

 

[BigDave]

While corresponding with the Attorney Generals office regarding an open carry opinion, I received an initial response from an assistant attorney general with the following paragraph:

I am continuing my correspondence with them and will be requesting a review of this assistant attorney generals response.

What opinion would that be? A published one or you are wanting a written opinion on open carry?

 

[slapmonkay]

Jeez, Due to popular demand, below is my original inquiry sent into the AGO from several weeks ago. (I decided to include the full story, for those that seem to need to know every detail).

Now, obviously, I knew that they don't give official opinions to private individuals (I have even told others this in the past) but that normally does not stop them from give a node in what direction they feel it would go. I sent the inquiry to see what would say. Not to my surprise, they attempted to answer the question albeit with the added (and not requested) comment towards Open Carry 9.41.270 and the requirement to conceal (over phone she said this).

Dear Attorney General Rob McKenna,

I am writing you today to seek clarification and opinion regarding a Washington State RCW relating to the carry of firearms. The clarification is being requested due to the ambiguity of the law as written and the wide spread effect this could have regarding “vehicles” such as motorcycles and bicycles.

The code that I seek clarification of is RCW 9.41.050, more specifically (2)(a) which reads:

“A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.”

The code is unclear in how it relates to the act of openly carrying a firearm during the use of vehicles, such as motorcycles (RCW 46.04.330) and bicycles (RCW 46.04.670), where the driver is on top of RATHER THAN inside of the vehicle. At the root of the ambiguity is the use of the phrase ‘in any vehicle’ and if an individual could be within an item such as a motorcycle or bicycle.

Whereas it is unclear if the regulation requiring a CPL to carry contained within RCW 9.41.050(2)(a) applies to individuals whom openly carry there firearms while riding on a vehicle, I seek your opinion on the matter and seek clarification of the original intent of the law.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXX

The Initial Response

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX:

On behalf of the Attorney General Robert M. McKenna, thank you for your inquiry received
September 19, 2012. Your inquiry was forwarded to me for response. I represent the
Department of Licensing, Firearms Program. In your inquiry, you ask for clarification of RCW
9.41.050(2)(a), specifically how it relates to carrying a firearm while riding on motorcycles,
rather than carrying inside a vehicle. You further inquiry whether the RCW 46.04.330, .670
applies to individuals whom openly carry firearms on their motorcycle.

The RCW’s apply to vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. Carrying a firearm on a motorcycle or
bicycle is the same as carrying a firearm in a vehicle. You will need a license to carry a
concealed weapon. See DOL website at www.dol.wa.gov. You may also contact the
Department of Licensing, Firearms Unit for general information. You may reach them at 360-
664-6616 or by e-mail at firearms@dol.wa.gov.

The Attorney General’s Office does not have an official position on open carry of guns. However it
is safe to state that Washington is not an “open carry state” as that term is generally understood.
Specifically, RCW 9.41.270 addresses open carry of weapons. RCW 9.41

We will attempt to refer you to sources of potential assistance in resolving your concerns. The
Attorney General’s Office serves as legal counsel to state agencies and certain elected officials
and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to private citizens.

I hope this has been of some assistance to you.

Sincerely,

SUSAN L. PIERINI, Assistant Attorney General

Now at this point, had Susan's reply not included the Washington is not an 'open carry state' I would have left the thread alone and continued on my way. However, she includes that statement which is clearly false to anyone that knows WA case law regarding firearms. This also lowers my confidence in the response she gave to my original question as I have to assume she's replying in regards to conceal carry on a motorcycle which would require a permit (since she does not believe open carry is legal).

Anyways, this is when I call Susan Pierini's office which is described earlier in this thread.

As a followup to the conversation we had over the phone, I sent a email with the information on case law and links to training bulletins for her to study if she so choose to know the laws in which she is responding for.

Hello Assistant Attorney General Susan Pierini,

This is a follow-up communication regarding the correspondence started on 9/19/2012 of which you replied on 10/3/2012 and following our phone conversation taken place on 10/5/2012 in regards to the act of ‘Open Carry’ in Washington state.

I wanted to include the court rulings in which we discussed in our phone conversation. I have also included links to downloadable PDF files for various training bulletins released by WA state police departments, links are included further down on this email.

Unfortunately, I still feel as if my original question has not been addressed due to the disagreement on open carry in Washington State. It appears my original question regarding open carry ON a vehicle rather than IN a vehicle may not be answerable without a test case. However, I am still continuing my efforts with a local governmental agency to try and get an official opinion from Attorney General Rob McKenna.

I do appreciate your time and effort that you have applied towards this. I do wish that you review the references provided in regards to Open Carry in Washington.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

References:

WA Supreme Court
State v. Maciolek (1984)
101 Wn.2d 259, STATE v. MACIOLEK
CAUSE NUMBER: 49904-7
HTML: http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/101wn2d/101wn2d0259.htm

WA Appeals Court
State v. Spencer
Spencer, 75 Wn. App. at 123 n.4.
PDF: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=25

WA Appeals Court
State v. Casad (Unpublished)
No. 35333-4-II
PDF: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=9

Training Bulletins:
Bellingham Police - Training Bulletin: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=82
Kennewick Police - Training Bulletin: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=81
Spokane Police - Training Bulletin: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=36
Seattle Police - Training Bulletin: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=17
King County - Training Bulletin: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=5
Olympia Police - Training Bulletin: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=16

I then receive and email from Jeff Even, the Deputy Solicitor General, in regards to both of my recent inquiries.

Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX:

I write in response to your message to the Attorney General’s Office from earlier today, as well as an earlier message, both of which are copied below [REMOVED FROM Thread]. I am the attorney in our office responsible for coordinating the issuance of Opinions of the Attorney General.

Based upon the message below, it appears that you are hoping to receive an Attorney General’s Opinion relating to carrying firearms. It may be helpful to provide additional information regarding our opinions process. I am attaching an electronic copy of our opinions brochure, which provides additional information about that process.

It may also be helpful to explain that we are not authorized by law to issue Opinions on the request of private individuals. The Attorney General’s Office is only authorized to provide advice and legal representation to members of the Legislature, state agency heads and, in some circumstances, county prosecuting attorneys. In light of this, we must decline to provide your requested opinion.

I trust that this information will be helpful.
Jeff Even
Deputy Solicitor General

To help clarify the information contained in the second email intended for Susan, I reply to Jeff's email.

Mr. Even,

Thank you for your correspondence. I understand your stance and legal obligations are that only to the Legislature and State Agencies. Further I acknowledge that your office is not able to provide legal assistance or opinions to private individuals.

Your office does however, attempt to refer private individuals to sources of potential assistance and gives opinionated overviews if available, as evidence of the reply received by Assistant Attorney General Susan Pierini on 10/5/2012. In this correspondence with Susan Pierini, I feel misinformation (that was not even requested) was provided to the private individual, that being myself. The second correspondence sent today was not meant to be a request for further opinion but rather as an email to Attorney General Susan Pierini with cites for your information and review. I am no longer requesting an opinion from your office in regards to the first correspondence, which I acknowledged in the second correspondence paragraph 3.

I do desire that my second correspondence be sent/forwarded to Assistant Attorney General Susan Pierini or an email address for her be provided to me directly, as the correspondence is relevant to the phone conversation I had with her this day.

I will review the opinions brochure and continue to work with a local governmental entity to get an official opinion on this matter from the AG.

To confirm my second correspondence is properly forwarded by my request to Assistant Attorney General Susan Pierini, I will perform a follow-up call directly with her offices regarding the matter.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXX

and then a few bickers back and forth:

Thank you for the clarification. I don’t know that there needs to be a continuing discussion on this.

Should I take your statement below to mean that you do not intend to forward my second correspondence to Assistant Attorney General Susan Pierini?

Thanks,

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Ms. Pierini has your second message, but as I indicated, I’m not seeing a need or a purpose for ongoing conversations about this.

And here we are. Hopefully I got enough detail in there for those individuals that feel the need to know everything even when its not totally relevant.

 

[tombrewster421]

I think he's just mad that you "schooled" one of the AGs in the office and is trying to save face.

 

[BigDave]

slapmonkey I am surprised he corresponded with you on this subject as he did.
Just because you did not like one short sentence which was not even a part of your original request and you admit you knew the AG Office did not give advice to the public and was told a couple times more and still pursued something that was not going to happen.

No wonder they have a dim view on open carriers.

 

[Schlepnier]

EMN has conflated federal court hierarchy with state court hierarchy.

Please read:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational.../CourtStructure/StructureOfFederalCourts.aspx
http://www.uscourts.gov/Educational...erstandingFederalAndStateCourtsCaseStudy.aspx

Thanks for the info it is pretty much what i thought when refering to a federal case conflicting(or not) with another federal case.