Template to put Chiefs of Police or Sheriffs in Washington on notice about the law of open carry

[joeroket]

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Your bringing up an analogy reminds me of the analogy I have been meaning to use. It happens that I own a Doberman Pinscher. He's a really docile animal, friendly as can be, and always wants to play. I have never seen him growl or bare his teeth at anyone. He just wants affection, and he'll take it from just about anyone. But just because of who (what) he is some people think he's extremely intimidating. Last week I had acontractor come to my door to do some work I needed done and the moment he saw my dog he turned around and left. Refused to even come in the house.

Point is, did my dog cause alarm for the safety of others? It's entirely in the perception. I KNOW that he was no threat to the contractor, but the contractor didn't see it that way and chose not to enter my house. Was he right? Did he have any claim of alarm for his safety? I leave that to anyone who wants to field it.

Your dog may have caused him to be alarmed but, as you stated your dog is very docile, because your dog is a doberman did not warrant his being alarmed. Now if your dog had growled menacingly and tried to charge him then the alarm probably would have been warranted. Just because the contractor saw a dog he was afraid of does not mean that the fear was warranted.

Same with guns, some people are just plain afraid of guns, for whatever reason, and they freak out when they see them. Does it mean that what you aare doing with the gun is scaring them? No it means they are scared of the inanimate object that is secured in your holster doing absolutely nothing. If you were walking around with your hand on the grip as if you were about to draw it then I could see where your actions along with the gun might warrant thier alarm.

 

[Richard6218]

imported post

Now the question is, Who determines whether the alarm is warranted? And whose opinion of that prevails in a court of law?

Turn the question around. Suppose my dog did have a bad disposition and MIGHT have attacked the contractor. Would he still have been wrong to have decided prior to entering the house that he was alarmed for his safety? He would not have known that without entering the house and thereby putting himself at risk.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Now the question is, Who determines whether the alarm is warranted? And whose opinion of that prevails in a court of law?

Turn the question around. Suppose my dog did have a bad disposition and MIGHT have attacked the contractor. Would he still have been wrong to have decided prior to entering the house that he was alarmed for his safety? He would not have known that without entering the house and thereby putting himself at risk.

A reasonable person is the person that decides. Granted it is up to a judge to decide what a reasonable person would think, if it gets to that point, but there is higher court caselaw that has already determined that it is not illegal to openly carry a firearm and that because it scares a person does not mean the alarm was warranted.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Now the question is, Who determines whether the alarm is warranted? And whose opinion of that prevails in a court of law?

Turn the question around. Suppose my dog did have a bad disposition and MIGHT have attacked the contractor. Would he still have been wrong to have decided prior to entering the house that he was alarmed for his safety? He would not have known that without entering the house and thereby putting himself at risk.

Might haves don't count in court. What actually happened is what counts. You theory guys are a pain in the butt with your might haves.WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED is all that counts. Might haves and what ifs are classroom stuff.

 

[just_a_car]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Richard, it's not "causes" alarm, it's "warrants." Big difference. And it's not just "warrants alarm," but "warrants alarm" . . . "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place".

Does the dog encounter meet those standards?

I will stipulate that the dog caused alarm, the question is, was the alarm warranted?

...And it's not just "warrants alarm", but "warrants alarm for the safety of others." So, if they think you might hurt yourself but have no chance of hurting anyone else, technically they can't charge you. *chuckle*

Darwinism written into the legislation... never thought I'd see it.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

deanf wrote:

Richard, it's not "causes" alarm, it's "warrants." Big difference. And it's not just "warrants alarm," but "warrants alarm" . . . "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place".

Does the dog encounter meet those standards?

I will stipulate that the dog caused alarm, the question is, was the alarm warranted?

Darwinism written into the legislation... never thought I'd see it.

That and it is not illegal to commit suicide. It is only illegal to fail at it.

 

[Richard6218]

imported post

Well, this thing has about run its course but I have one more wrinkle to throw in: When I opened the door I had the dog by the collar, but he lunged at this guy, not to attack but to check him out.He does this all the time with strangers. As I said, he's extraordinarily friendly, but some people see this as aggression, at least until they can see that he only wants to meet people. Could this be a case of "warrants alarm" as I've described it? Until one can see his intent is friendly, it might well be taken the wrong way. Next?



Here's an incident: Today I went to the gun show and OC'ed my Glock. At the door they made me unload it, empty the magazine and put a ziptie through the barrel. Do they have the right to restrict OC because they are a private party and not LE?

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

YES, As leased it is the same as private property.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

YES, As leased it is the same as private property.

It is also extremely hypocritical as all hell for any gun show to do this. The term 2 faced comes to mind.

 

[team one]

imported post

I don't think the dog example is a good analogy to the weapon RCW, a dog has a mind of its own, and there are a whole lot more variables, than a holstered gun, which is entirely under your physical control.

 

[LostCoast]

imported post

Hello,

I hope I'm not off topic but this letter is what I need here in Calif. Does anyone have the capacity here to help me adapt it for use in Calif?

thanks for your time and effort,

Steve

 

[Mike]

imported post

LostCoast wrote:

Hello,

I hope I'm not off topic but this letter is what I need here in Calif. Does anyone have the capacity here to help me adapt it for use in Calif?

thanks for your time and effort,

Steve

Do you have harassment of open carriers in Calif.? if so, explainin Calif. forum. First, read People v. Knight - link onmain page for Calif - click on Calif. state on map to see summary and link.

 

[Richard6218]

imported post

I disagree on that point. There is a lot of case law about dogs attacking people and their owners being sued/prosecuted for allowing a dangerous animal to get out of control. So I think the analogy holds.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

I disagree on that point. There is a lot of case law about dogs attacking people and their owners being sued/prosecuted for allowing a dangerous animal to get out of control. So I think the analogy holds.

The big difference is that a dog is not an inanimate object.

 

[Richard6218]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

I disagree on that point. There is a lot of case law about dogs attacking people and their owners being sued/prosecuted for allowing a dangerous animal to get out of control. So I think the analogy holds.

The big difference is that a dog is not an inanimate object.

True, but under the law an owner has a duty to control the dog, and that's the connection.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

I disagree on that point. There is a lot of case law about dogs attacking people and their owners being sued/prosecuted for allowing a dangerous animal to get out of control. So I think the analogy holds.

The big difference is that a dog is not an inanimate object.

True, but under the law an owner has a duty to control the dog, and that's the connection.

Yes they are but it is alot harder to control an animal that does not want to be controlled than it is a pistol that does nothing.

 

[Richard6218]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

I disagree on that point. There is a lot of case law about dogs attacking people and their owners being sued/prosecuted for allowing a dangerous animal to get out of control. So I think the analogy holds.

The big difference is that a dog is not an inanimate object.

True, but under the law an owner has a duty to control the dog, and that's the connection.

Yes they are but it is alot harder to control an animal that does not want to be controlled than it is a pistol that does nothing.

Right, but "harder to control" doesn't relieve the owner of the duty to control.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

I disagree on that point. There is a lot of case law about dogs attacking people and their owners being sued/prosecuted for allowing a dangerous animal to get out of control. So I think the analogy holds.

The big difference is that a dog is not an inanimate object.

True, but under the law an owner has a duty to control the dog, and that's the connection.

Yes they are but it is alot harder to control an animal that does not want to be controlled than it is a pistol that does nothing.

Right, but "harder to control" doesn't relieve the owner of the duty to control.

My point is that in trying to apply a dog to a firearm law is useless.

 

[team one]

imported post

A better analogy, would be, that a contractor was doing some work, went to the doorway of the kitchen in which you were preparing a sandwich, saw a large butcher knife in a knife block in front of you, sitting on the counter, and turned around and ran away from fear of the butcher knife. He may be alarmed, but, no, it doesn't warrant alarm.

 

[Schantz]

imported post


Where and when are you having your next gathering? If I can make it, I want to be there. If you have already posted the time and place, forgive me as I am still reading up on these forums. Just joined today.