I'm not asking

[Stomper]

I read every word twice. An eye-opener.

You're being sarcastic…. damned womens!

 

[Knobgoblin]

You're being sarcastic…. damned womens!

I'll take a thigh opener over an eye opener.

 

[Mikej]

Naw, man, you skipped over Jade East.
-

And....


Apparently "Timeless".

Musk, that's where I lived. Mmmmm

 

[OldBroad44]

You're being sarcastic…. damned womens!

Nope. I'm after substance, not just surfaces.

 

[Brians356]

Polo is the only decent one mentioned so far.

Canoe

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[Certaindeaf]

View attachment 1469355

Ricky Bobby taint!

 

[RVTECH]

and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found.

This is the part that really burns my azz....

To begin with the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States, so I don't really understand how this part is even rightfully a part of the law.

The fact that it also only specifies certain firearms further complicates the issue.

Possibly the ONLY time this could be carried out by members of the military is if during a time of Martial Law, but this is not specifically stated.

Otherwise military members, both officer and enlisted, are essentially civilians when off base.

 

[Old Dog]

No disrespect intended to the OP, but it seems he's incurred an extraordinary number of encounters with law enforcement who have issues with him being armed.

As a 25-year Navy vet who also avails himself of VA medical care, I can say I've not encountered difficulties such as his while living in Washington state (since '94).
Yeah, the recently enacted state firearms laws suck.

What is the OP really saying?

 

[RVTECH]

No disrespect intended to the OP, but it seems he's incurred an extraordinary number of encounters with law enforcement who have issues with him being armed.

Ditto on the no disrespect to the OP but is it possible people who have 'encounters' with LEO while armed are MAYBE displaying certain aspects of 'their rights' in a potentially flagrant and ostentatious manner?

OK - before anybody jumps to conclusions or goes all 'rah rah flag waiver' about this I am completely UNDERSTANDING OF and AGREE with all of our rights, but at the same time is it practical or intelligent to single oneself out to test the limits, and maybe 'push buttons' or otherwise intimidate people, especially LEOs with an exaggerated display of 'our rights' ?

Example - I am all for legal carry, OC or CC and see OC often and often do so myself as well - however is/was it a good idea for the guy a couple years ago who was wearing the vest, plate carrier (if I recall) and carrying an AR whole walking close to a Wally World store ? Or for anybody to carry (and maybe outfit themselves) with clothing or equipment which is possibly out of the norm and might create the illusion of something sinister or illegal - even if NOT?

At the same time I AM on the side of the OP 100% when he referenced LEOs not understanding basic firearms laws, asking simple questions that do not apply or otherwise stating, or possibly making things up that THEY should already know are not laws. I get this part. I have watched enough of the Audit the Audit YT episodes that prove LEOs quite often are really ignorant of many basic laws - not only about firearms but with many aspects of civilian law as well.

This being the case however is it any wonder when an LEO becomes irrational and agitated when he or she sees a display that is uncommon or out of the ordinary and responds in the only manner he or she can - or knows how? OR when the LEO takes a defiant position if the person exacerbates the situation by citing laws, rights, constitutionality and maybe shows an unwillingness to cooperate or answer simple questions or inquires from the LEO?

In conclusion one should do what one thinks is best, or what they firmly believe is OK because it is 'their right' - but at he same time they SHOULD NOT be surprised if they are questioned/detained by LEO; and if they continue to debate or argue the issue may have to take matters into their own hands to exonerate themselves from a situation they may ENTIRELY have been unlawfully drawn into by LEO authority REGARDLESS of whether the LEOs know the laws - or not.

 

[Nosferatu]

or answer simple questions or inquires from the LEO

You are under no obligation to answer ANY questions from any LEO.

Remember, they can legally lie. You cannot.

The best thing you can do for yourself in any LEO encounter is to STFU. But as Ron White said, you have the right, but most don't have the ability.

 

[Knobgoblin]

You are under no obligation to answer ANY questions from any LEO.

Remember, they can legally lie. You cannot.

The best thing you can do for yourself in any LEO encounter is to STFU. But as Ron White said, you have the right, but most don't have the ability.

" we're just here to help you "

 

[Nosferatu]

" we're just here to help you escalate the situation"

 

[Stomper]

Dangerous out there
Constitutional rights stripped
Silent and deadly


Well, in the last decade of the ~seven cops I've met, I would say two drink the liberal Kool Aid.
My city mayor and council are hair on fire liberals, though not as bad as Portland.
I have learned, advocate for safety. Read the room, and if it's not the right audience, don't mention guns.
Training is good, but again, only discuss with those who understand.
I have found that speaking out against tyranny is often talking to a wall, because others don't see it that way. Seems we live among zombies.
Pointing out the contradictions of peoples emotions has gotten me screamed at a few times. The way they come unglued, it's a good thing some liberals don't carry weapons.

That's because most people don't have a problem with tyranny, as long as it's THEIR brand of tyranny.

 

[TTSX]

Dangerous out there
Constitutional rights stripped
Silent and deadly

 

[Stomper]

You are under no obligation to answer ANY questions from any LEO.

Remember, they can legally lie. You cannot.

The best thing you can do for yourself in any LEO encounter is to STFU. But as Ron White said, you have the right, but most don't have the ability.

Ya caught me…. you caught the, Tater Salad!

 

[Nosferatu]

Ya caught me…. you caught the, Tater Salad!

But they were stopping everytone driving on that sidewalk that night...and that's profiling, which is wrong.

 

[RVTECH]

The way they come unglued, it's a good thing some liberals don't carry weapons.

And this is exactly why some of them ARE beginning to carry weapons - NOT because of self defense but as a way to protect their radical beliefs and ideas.

Libs & radicals are arming up against traditionalists, pro 2A,ers, people who don't agree with their new, woke ideas, beliefs, etc.

They have no connection with firearms other than as them being a way for them to 'level the playing field' so to speak, equal the 'odds' etc.

Libs with guns concern me considerably....

 

[Bobbygun]

But they were stopping everytone driving on that sidewalk that night...and that's profiling, which is wrong.

You guys need to leave Ron alone. IIRC he wanted to be drunk in the bar and it was the bouncers throwing him out that resulted in him being "drunk in pub lick".

Man, that was a classic bit.

 

[Nosferatu]

You guys need to leave Ron alone. IIRC he wanted to be drunk in the bar and it was the bouncers throwing him out that resulted in him being "drunk in pub lick".

Man, that was a classic bit.

Luckily he didn't know how may bouncers it would have taken to kick his bubblegum, but he knew how many they were going to use, which is handy information!