Man Ticketed With Open Carry

[Atroxus]

They already do. They are called prosecuting attorneys!

Do the police have instant access to the prosecutors to clarify questions before making arrests, or issuing citations? If so then the police really need to start using that resource, and if they don't they should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Only problem is that it's still tax money thats paying those lawsuits. If you sue the city, county, state, or federal government, you are essentially suing yourself, and your neighbors because it's tax money that is going to used to pay out the settlement/judgement.

In my opinion the best way to prevent this would be for each police department to have a lawyer on call 24/7 to answer legal questions the officers in the field are unsure of. (such as "Should I arrest or ticket this guy that just has a gun in a holster?") Then make the police personally liable for any willful/negligent violations of peoples rights. If the lawyer gives bad information that results in a violation of a citizens rights then make the lawyer personally liable.

That's a great idea but for now the only redress a citizen has is the courts

 

[Blitzkrieg]

But of course that excludes police, they're responsible right? Another case of people in power having different standards for themselves, special rights.

The one that currently angers me is congressmen and their special gold plated health insurance plan. I can't use the correct words in a public forum to express my rage, when are we going to wake up and demand that people in power live under the same rules they enforce on us?

How can we expect things to change when even the 2nd amendment movement has liberals within? (on this board, to boot)

Americans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by 50 years of leftist "television" and media, training grounds for egalitarian communism

Just as in The Animal Farm, all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others

 

[svxr8dr]

Kirby to be prosecuted
http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/mar/30/prosecutors-planning-charge-man-open-carry-handgun/

 

[Rapid1]

Even if he wins millions from the PD, it won't cost Oregon taxpayers a cent.

Bruce

LOL...wrong state. had the Medford thing on my mind while reading this...sorry

 

[Nightshade]

Vancouver, WA — In a case being closely watched by open-carry gun advocates, the City Attorney’s Office said Tuesday it plans to proceed with its case against a Vancouver man who was ticketed March 19 for wearing an openly displayed pistol outside an Albertson’s shopping center.

Kurk Kirby, 26, was packing a total of 35 rounds — including those loaded in the holstered .45-caliber gun and in two magazine clips — when he was ticketed for the crime of unlawful carrying of a weapon.

A follow-up investigation into the incident initiated by the City Attorney’s Office provided the ammunition to bring formal charges against Kirby, said Kevin McClure, a supervising prosecutor.

“We are going forward with the prosecution of the case,” McClure said.

A notice of appearance filed on behalf of Kirby by Vancouver attorney Christopher Dumm is effectively a not guilty plea.

The trial against Kirby is scheduled to begin May 12 at 8:30 a.m.

“Mr. Kirby and I are obviously disappointed by this decision,” said Dumm, who noted the case has received attention from open-carry advocates. “I’ll probably have to save my arguments for the courtroom.”

Dumm has advised Kirby not to discuss the case in which a conviction could carry a sentence of up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Kirby made no menacing statements or gestures to anyone at 5000 E. Fourth Plain Blvd., police say. He simply stood around near stores for 10 to 15 minutes before someone called 911, according to a Vancouver Police Department report.

Kirby told officers that he was within his rights to carry the gun, the report said.

“Washington is an open-carry state,” Dumm previously told The Columbian. “The police deserve my respect and they have it, but nobody is perfect and mistakes are made.”

The Vancouver police report says officers were called to the strip mall shortly after 4 p.m. March 19, because a store owner had watched Kirby standing around wearing his gun. The man told police he called 911 because he was concerned for his customers, including several small children.

Three officers approached the supermarket and saw Kirby outside, wearing a skin-tight T-shirt that didn’t cover the large holstered gun.

The report said the officers “contacted him” and one took the gun and extra ammo magazines from him.

The Springfield Armory XP pistol had a bullet in its chamber and several more in the magazine snapped into its handle. More rounds were in the two extra magazines, for a total of 35, the report said.

Kirby told officers that he was within his rights to carry the gun, the report said.

“I asked Kirby why he needed to ‘open carry,’” an officer reported. “He said he needed to in case he was attacked.

“I asked if he felt he was going to be attacked today and he said ‘no’ but maybe tomorrow he would be,” the officer said.

Kirby’s wife, Dawn Kirby, walked up and told officers she was wearing a concealed gun and had a permit for it, the report said.

Checking computers for the minivan the Kirbys arrived in, officers learned that the pair had staged an open carry the day before at Westfield Vancouver mall, the report said. Security officers had escorted them from the mall and reported they had been “belligerent.”

After receiving a copy of the ticket, Kirby “said he did not understand what the ‘big deal’ was because he had gone to about 10 different stores in the last several months with his gun in plain view and no one had ever complained,” the report said.

Kirby didn’t mention being told to leave the mall the day before, police said.

 

[clearconscience]

And I quote........WTF



In the initial report, police wrote that Kirby made no menacing statements or gestures to anyone while he was at the strip mall at 5000 E. Fourth Plain Blvd. He simply stood around near stores for 10 to 15 minutes before someone called 911, according to a Vancouver Police Department report.

But additional investigation requested by McClure found witnesses who said they saw Kirby repeatedly “going into the draw position.”

He looked like “Wyatt Earp, ready to draw,” one eyewitness told police. Another witness told police he was “concerned enough with Kirby’s appearance and demeanor that he not only called 911 but kept all his kids inside prior to police arrival,” according to reports.

 

[deen_ad]

Checking computers for the minivan the Kirbys arrived in, officers learned that the pair had staged an open carry the day before at Westfield Vancouver mall, the report said. Security officers had escorted them from the mall and reported they had been “belligerent.”

After receiving a copy of the ticket, Kirby “said he did not understand what the ‘big deal’ was because he had gone to about 10 different stores in the last several months with his gun in plain view and no one had ever complained,” the report said.

Kirby didn’t mention being told to leave the mall the day before, police said.

Has anybody seen a "No Guns" allowed sign at the Mall lately? I haven't, there used to be but not now. Unless the place is posted they legally can't escort him off the premises nor charge him with trespassing unless he actuall refuses to leave when asked.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Has anybody seen a "No Guns" allowed sign at the Mall lately? I haven't, there used to be but not now. Unless the place is posted they legally can't escort him off the premises nor charge him with trespassing unless he actuall refuses to leave when asked.

This is WA State.. do you actually expect anything less?

The law is nasty and tricksy.. it states that is *anyone* is *alarmed* by the presence of your gun, you have committed a crime. I am not joking, you can go to jail because a hoplophobe or other nut case is terrified at the mere sight of a gun in your holster!

 

[ZachS]

This is WA State.. do you actually expect anything less?

The law is nasty and tricksy.. it states that is *anyone* is *alarmed* by the presence of your gun, you have committed a crime. I am not joking, you can go to jail because a hoplophobe or other nut case is terrified at the mere sight of a gun in your holster!

Really? Can you show me where the RCW or any court decision says that?

 

[clearconscience]

Really? Can you show me where the RCW or any court decision says that?

Your about to see one when their done with this case.

I say we all file complaints that the police in the city and county officers are intimidating us because they are carrying.

Personally my feeling are hurt, they must be breaking the law??? Right?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Really? Can you show me where the RCW or any court decision says that?

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/WashingtonOpenCarryBan.html

unlawful "for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, 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."1

See what I mean? If any libtard-hoplophobe is "alarmed" then you can be charged.. lunacy

 

[ZachS]

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/WashingtonOpenCarryBan.html



See what I mean? If any libtard-hoplophobe is "alarmed" then you can be charged.. lunacy

Naw, you have to "intend" to intimidate or your behavior has to "warrant" alarm by some sort of objective standard. God only knows what that standard actually is, but it is based on what a judge or jury somewhere thinks, not the reaction of a castrated passer-by.


btw, I agree that this arrest/prosecution is completely out-of-line.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Naw, you have to "intend" to intimidate or your behavior has to "warrant" alarm by some sort of objective standard. God only knows what that standard actually is, but it is based on what a judge or jury somewhere thinks, not the reaction of a castrated passer-by.


btw, I agree that this arrest/prosecution is completely out-of-line.

Read the law more carefully.. and read the link. Anyone who is "alarmed" by your weapon can call the cops, and if they are antis you will be charged. I guarantee it

 

[clearconscience]

Yeah I have no doubt they wrote that law so they could interprete that way it's written to whatever they see fit.

They give us the "right" to open carry. But if anyone finds it alarming then your screwed. Which in today's world everyone is tree hugging hippies and will be alarmed at just about anything. You look at someone in the wrong way and they find it alarming.

 

[Atroxus]

This is WA State.. do you actually expect anything less?

The law is nasty and tricksy.. it states that is *anyone* is *alarmed* by the presence of your gun, you have committed a crime. I am not joking, you can go to jail because a hoplophobe or other nut case is terrified at the mere sight of a gun in your holster!

Actually that is not what the law says. Below is the applicable RCW. I bolded what I believe is the relevant section.

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, 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.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

 

[cyclesarge]

That's so true, I was at a local gun store, S&M...when the owner talked about open carry...I put down $20 on the counter, and said..' If you walk up and down River Rd for 15 minutes back and forth with that 45 on your hip where everyone can see it...this $20 is yours'

Of course they didn't take me up on it...

I'm not sure of the exact wording, but there is a a city ordinance that considers "open carry" as "brandishing" in Eugene. That's why I got my CHL, because if someone "sees" your gun within the city limits, it is considered "brandishing" so unless you have a CHL there is no way to legally get your gun from your house to the trunk of your car. I don't know if the law applies to River Rd though since the city limits are all messed up out there.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Actually that is not what the law says. Below is the applicable RCW. I bolded what I believe is the relevant section.

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, 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.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

How was what I posted "not correct"? The link I used quoted the crucial passage perfectly..

 

[Atroxus]

How was what I posted "not correct"? The link I used quoted the crucial passage perfectly..

I would say there is a pretty big difference between "...it states that is *anyone* is *alarmed* by the presence of your gun." and the RCW which I am paraphrasing of course; says that you have to manifest intent to intimidate, or be doing something to warrant alarm. So standing in public with a gun in a holster while picking my nose would be perfectly legal, albeit disgusting.

 

[SnackCracker]

I'm not sure of the exact wording, but there is a a city ordinance that considers "open carry" as "brandishing" in Eugene. That's why I got my CHL, because if someone "sees" your gun within the city limits, it is considered "brandishing" so unless you have a CHL there is no way to legally get your gun from your house to the trunk of your car. I don't know if the law applies to River Rd though since the city limits are all messed up out there.

That Eugene ordinance is unenforceable if you have a CHL. Read this other post where I listed the ORS that have preemption and make the ordinance a moot point for CHL holders:

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28454