I know about the forum rules, but there have been mentions of Spencer several times, and people seem to forget that Spencer was all about the carrying of a RIFLE, not the handgun he had legally concealed. The court noted that he was legally carrying the pistol and didn't seem to even shrug at that.
If we are going to chat up Spencer regarding Open Carry, keep in perspective what Spencer was openly carrying.
Casad is the same situation. He was toting long guns. Packing a handgun in a responsible manner (and there's no guidelines on what exactly defines that) does not seem to get much attention from the courts. That's as it should be.
But...and there's that word, again...if people here want to start pushing the envelope with their mode of carry, their behavior, even their clothing, eventually someone is going to cross that imaginary line and the result could be a court precedent that affects everyone. Best to keep that in perspective.
And maybe that leads us into an area that ought to be discussed. Reasonably, rationally and sensibly. Maybe it is overdue for discussion.
The trial hasn't even been held in Vancouver on the Kirby case, and there is enough vagueness about his alleged behavior leading up to the initial police contact that I wouldn't take any bets right now on whether he will be found guilty or not guilty.
Now, about the other Vancouver case. We're talking about 10 p.m., pretty empty parking lot of a mall shopping area in which all the stores were closed, it is SNOWING (when it would seem to me that a prudent person just "might" want to cover up his expensive handgun to protect it from the weather) and this is happening outside of a pizza joint that had recently been the target of a robber.
The thread on that caper has sort of wound up presently with a discussion about the value or liability of appearing "confrontational" and some of you guys better pay attention to that because the court of public opinion is a nasty environment, and it is pretty easy to lose there. All you need to do is be bluster-stupid. Just once. For even just a moment.
None of us were there on the night Mr. Watson (aka w07rolla, the op) so we aren't exactly certain what happened. We all know how the jury decided, and that jury was not anti-gun. Meaning no disrespect to Watson, but starting an argument with a police officer while you are armed is typically a losing proposition, not just for the individual, but for every other armed citizen. Good luck on your appeal because it has the potential to impact a whole lot of people.
Attitude and demeanor have a great deal to do with how any encounter with a police officer or sheriff's deputy is going to turn out. It's called, in police parlance, the "attitude test." I've seen a lot of people flunk that one, and a lot of other people pass with flying colors. Try looking up Chris Rock's "How Not to get your ass kicked by the cops" video (it's hilarious) and learn something from it.
Firearms owners as a community need to be able to be less immediately defensive of our own and more analytical until we know more about some specific situation. In Tom Brewster's situation down in Spanaway, we had the benefit of a recording of the encounter. 99% of the time that doesn't happen.
Keep in mind, I write about this stuff a lot, and deal with all kinds of people who have run into trouble with the law over some gun-related problem. I really hate writing about or dealing with some poor guy who screwed up from the get-go, but on the other hand, I don't have much sympathy for them, either.
< Flame suit on. >
