Seattle Weekly Article on OpenCarry

[Faceplant]

imported post

Thank you Gray Peterson. I gladly am corrected. I still have much to learn about many things.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

Faceplant wrote:

The way it was explained to me was that if you are going out of your front door to get the morning paper in your bathrobe and LEO stops and asks for I.D. you are supposed to have it on your person. If you do not have the requested I.D. you can be subject to a fine because you cannot prove who you are.

Your Papers Please !?!?!

 

[Mike]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

You can certainly disagree with me, but all I am here is the messenger. Police responding to a "man with a gun" call can take the firearm from the individual upon contact while they go about sorting things out. That's been upheld in court.

Well, yeah, provided that the facts bear out to support BOTH a Terry stop to begin with ("reasonable articulable suspicion" that crime is afoot) and that the person is BOTH "armed and presently dangerous"; where the seizure of the person and property is simply made because the person is carrying a gun and someone complained, the police conduct violates the Fourth Amendment and is actionable for damages.

 

[911Boss]

imported post

You all might want to re-read Sgt. Urquhart's quote;

"Obviously someone carrying an open handgun in an urban environment is a concern to us. It is very unusual for us to find someone carrying open," says Sgt. John Urquhart, spokesperson for the King County Sheriff's Office. "Any call we get about a person carrying a handgun openly, deputies will contact that person and, depending on circumstances, may or may not take the gun away for safety reasons."

Urquhart cites RCW 9.41.270, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm...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."

I bolded the important part. He correctly cited the RCW and he correctly gave a general explanation of SO's policy. He said disarming the person would depend on the circumstances, and it might not happen. How exactly is that anti-OC, anti-civil rights, or not understanding the law?

What he did NOT say is that OC was illegal, or that the SO will trample the rights of the citizens. KCSO has a good rep on OC, they have an accurate training bulletin and the "word" is out.

I swear so many folks are always looking to find something to jump on and read into things. If I get a call that a guy is walking around with a gun and I send the Deputies who find him and talk to him and the circumstances involve him actually breaking the law (say he was in his veh and doesn't have a CPL, or he had made a threat to the guy who dinged his car with a shopping cart, or any other of thousands of legitmate "what ifs"...) and the Deputy takes the gun than it is not just for the OC, it is as a result other circumstances.

We really do have enough legitimate issues to address without also chasing after windmills folks....

PS- Workman's quotes were accurate as well. I see no dis-service done.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

"911 Boss"... right you are.

I, too, get the impression that some folks simply don't read some things completely and absorb what they're reading, and instead (no pun intended) jump the gun.

Urquhart didn't say anything untoward. He and I have discussed OC on many occasions for the past few years.

BTW, thanks for your kind remark.

 

[Bill Starks]

imported post

You all might want to re-read Sgt. Urquhart's quote;

"Obviously someone carrying an open handgun in an urban environment is a concern to us. It is very unusual for us to find someone carrying open," says Sgt. John Urquhart, spokesperson for the King County Sheriff's Office. "Any call we get about a person carrying a handgun openly, deputies will contact that person and, depending on circumstances, may or may not take the gun away for safety reasons."

Urquhart cites RCW 9.41.270, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm...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."

I bolded the important part. He correctly cited the RCW and he correctly gave a general explanation of SO's policy. He said disarming the person would depend on the circumstances, and it might not happen. How exactly is that anti-OC, anti-civil rights, or not understanding the law?

I agree it does depend on the circumstances buttttt...the King County Sheriff's Office has had a Open Carry Training Bulletin since November 2006. Maybe they need a refresher course....

 

[911Boss]

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

You all might want to re-read Sgt. Urquhart's quote;

"Obviously someone carrying an open handgun in an urban environment is a concern to us. It is very unusual for us to find someone carrying open," says Sgt. John Urquhart, spokesperson for the King County Sheriff's Office. "Any call we get about a person carrying a handgun openly, deputies will contact that person and, depending on circumstances, may or may not take the gun away for safety reasons."

Urquhart cites RCW 9.41.270, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm...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."

I bolded the important part. He correctly cited the RCW and he correctly gave a general explanation of SO's policy. He said disarming the person would depend on the circumstances, and it might not happen. How exactly is that anti-OC, anti-civil rights, or not understanding the law?

I agree it does depend on the circumstances buttttt...the King County Sheriff's Office has had a Open Carry Training Bulletin since November 2006. Maybe they need a refresher course....

Why do they need a refresher? What was incorrect with John's statement? There needs to be a balance between us exercising our rights, the public's concern for when they see something out of the ordinary, and the duties and expectations of law enforcement.

Anyone who thinks a MWAG call in an urban/suburban should not get a response is a fool. In this day and age telling a caller that it is legal and we aren't coming until something more serious happens just isn't rational. If folks seriously expect to be able to go about their life devoid of contact with others (and possibly the po-po) then they shouldn't leave their house. Not every contact is a detainment, not every question an interrogation.

There was nothing incorrect with the statement, and I would expect an officer to act based on the circumstances present. Now if they do something unwarranted by the circumstances, THEN I might get concerned.

Deros72 has pointed out that the KCSO folks do know the laws and seem to treat OC folks well. I have been on this board for a while now and have seen quite a few reports of "mistreatment" of OCers at the hand of officers, but not a single one of those reports involved KCSO. I know for a fact what questions are asked when someone calls KCSO for MWAG. While we are going to send someone, we are also asking questions to get the totality of the circumstances and that info will be given to the officers responding. John's statement is right on in another aspect, we don't get a lot of those calls. They are unusual and out of the ordinary.

There are enough legitimate concerns to work on and the OC "movement" as a whole will do better to stick to the them instead of manufacturing reasons to complain about agencies that aren't causing problems. While there may be individual officers, and even entire agencies that just don't get it, the police as a whole our not our enemy and it would be smart to avoid the appearance of trying to make them so.

 

[Bill Starks]

imported post

Why do they need a refresher? What was incorrect with John's statement? There needs to be a balance between us exercising our rights, the public's concern for when they see something out of the ordinary, and the duties and expectations of law enforcement.

Had he said what you said, I would have never made my statement. Until he does, I stand by it.

 

[jarhead1911A]

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

jarhead1055 wrote:

I jumped him about it as well because people have agenda's and people seem to think that they can just say whatever they want because they own a domain name. Well this is bad we ALL are going to get slammed for this article so instead of getting the facts out to the public we ended and when i say "we" i am talking about a couple of people in question so the article looks like we are a bunch of gay gun carrying in your face cowboys.

Awwww, what's wrong, Marc? Are you so insecure in your own heterosexuality that you think people will think you're gay if any one of us are? :quirky

Oh lonnie i am very secure with my sexuality and for the last time i will not send you naked pics of me so quit asking......:what:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

911Boss wrote:

You all might want to re-read Sgt. Urquhart's quote;

"Obviously someone carrying an open handgun in an urban environment is a concern to us. It is very unusual for us to find someone carrying open," says Sgt. John Urquhart, spokesperson for the King County Sheriff's Office. "Any call we get about a person carrying a handgun openly, deputies will contact that person and, depending on circumstances, may or may not take the gun away for safety reasons."

Urquhart cites RCW 9.41.270, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm...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."

I bolded the important part. He correctly cited the RCW and he correctly gave a general explanation of SO's policy. He said disarming the person would depend on the circumstances, and it might not happen. How exactly is that anti-OC, anti-civil rights, or not understanding the law?

What he did NOT say is that OC was illegal, or that the SO will trample the rights of the citizens. KCSO has a good rep on OC, they have an accurate training bulletin and the "word" is out.

I swear so many folks are always looking to find something to jump on and read into things. If I get a call that a guy is walking around with a gun and I send the Deputies who find him and talk to him and the circumstances involve him actually breaking the law (say he was in his veh and doesn't have a CPL, or he had made a threat to the guy who dinged his car with a shopping cart, or any other of thousands of legitmate "what ifs"...) and the Deputy takes the gun than it is not just for the OC, it is as a result other circumstances.

We really do have enough legitimate issues to address without also chasing after windmills folks....

PS- Workman's quotes were accurate as well. I see no dis-service done.

I did read that, but he didn't specify they would do this if seeing a gun carrierengaged in unlawful activity, maybe he was taken out of context I don't think he was. Depending on circumstances still makes a statement that he has the right to stop you for just carrying a gun, and then find out if you are breaking a law. I won't kill a dead horse but Mikes post a few posts up makes my same arugment.

 

[911Boss]

imported post

Well I guess I read the part relating to "circumstances" and the "may not" take the gun away part as addressing that.

As to "stopping you", there is a difference between casual contact and being detained. They don't need any suspicion to walk up and ask a few questions, and initially that is all they are doing unless they already have suspicion/PC or there has been a crime reported.

 

[Venator]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

sempercarry wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I was more concerned with Sherriff of King Couny's remarks. He might be setting his department up for a lawsuit. He does not have the right to disarm law abiding citizens.

Dave was doing is usual theres two side of the story thing, and I don't feel it was bad especially since he mentioned we need to educate people that what are doing isn't wrong.

Yeah, no @#$%. Up to the officers discretion my ass. Its a black and white issue. are they breaking the law or not. If they aren't and you take their gun....thats called theft of a firearm.

Well, actually, no it's not.
Courts have already held that officers can take a firearm during a contact in the interest of officer safety and public safety.
I don't necessarily like that or agree with it, same as you, but that's the way the courts have come down and we're stuck with it.

They can only if it's a lawful detention, which is only allowed with RAS or PC. Merely having a firearm is not RAS by itself and that is supported by the US Supreme Court. So if an officer makes a consensual interaction you are free to leave and they can't take you firearm. This may vary from state to state as some state have a must show ID law.

 

[ar15guy]

imported post

hehe

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

As I remind people in my book,

"Starting an argument with a police officer when you are armed is monumentally stupid. Invariably, you are going to lose."

Now, one person's "mouthy" is another's "attempt to educate."
It's an attitude thing, and you do not want to flunk the attitude test.

That said, some cops are purely anal about this, but that doesn't mean we need to be equally anal.

If the officer is harrassing you, and can't articulate reasonable suspicion, just keep asking if"am Ifree to go", or "am I being detained". And I think the only way for LEO's to learn is if we are 'equally anal' about the law. Again not all officers are but some are cops to be bullies and I don't like being bullied. They are now the attitude police? What do we do when approached with police who are full of "attitude".

I have stood my ground with them before when I was in the right and mostly one, not all the time but that is a risk in the past I was willing to take. If you know what you are talking about, and are in the right, stop being sheep. And file complaints, and sue.

Also what if I am not carrying ID and they remove my gun? What am I to do?

 

[Dave The Welder]

imported post

Excellent quotes Lonnie! Thanks for all your work Dave!