Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Open Carry gathering at Starbucks in Spanaway

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Dave Workman, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    Open Carry group plans Saturday solidarity gathering in Pierce County



    On the heels of a Sept. 28 encounter between an Open Carry activist and four Pierce County Sheriff’s deputies at a Spanaway Starbucks, more than a dozen members of OpenCarry.org are planning to gather at the same coffee shop on Saturday at 10 a.m. in a show of support for their comrade.

    The incident has sparked outrage on the Open Carry forum, primarily because the armed citizen in this case managed to capture most of it on audio, and there is a link provided on the website. It is worth a listen so everyone can make up their own minds about this.


    Open Carry group plans Saturday solidarity gathering in Pierce County - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

    Or try this:

    Open Carry group plans Saturday solidarity gathering in Pierce County - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
     
  2. mjbskwim

    mjbskwim Salmon,Idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,396
    Likes Received:
    7,616
    See now had he just given the officer his ID,like a NORMAL CITIZEN would have,there would have been NO PROBLEM.
    But because he wanted to push the issue he got what he wanted.

    OK A cop comes up to me and asks for ID.He is in a normal uniform trying to PROTECT SOCIETY.
    So,as a NORMAL citizen I give him my ID ,because I have nothing to hide.
    He asks,"Do you have a permit for that weapon?"
    I don't need a permit.I am open carrying as the law says I can.

    Why are you carrying it?

    That doesn't matter.I have the legal right to carry.Here is a copy of the state laws.

    See,if this was the exchange,the cops could go onto BETTER THINGS,rather than F@#KING with law abiding citizens.

    BUT YOU HAVE TO PRESS THE ISSUE.

    I just don't get it.

    Extremist are never listened to.

    Now read my post before you flame.
    Is it not true?
     
  3. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    Perhaps you are not familar with Article I Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution:

    ‎"SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED.
    No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." Washington Constitution

    Perhaps you are not familar with the 4th Amendment:

    ‎"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...to be seized." Amendment IV, US Constitution


    Perhaps the police should walk up to any citizen they choose and ignore the Constituion and demand ID?

    The citizen, Tom, in this case was doing nothing illegal. The police have no reason to make contact with him. Every court has decided this over and over.
     
  4. rdb241

    rdb241 Puyallup Washington Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    A few years ago I had an Aurburn police officer ask me for ID. I was not breaking any laws and ask him why I need to privide ID? He told me that in 1968 the US Supreme court made a ruleing after a case somewhere back east. It is called the "Terry stop". Which means that ANY law enforcment officer can ask anyone at anytime for ID and they must comply and produce proper ID. Even if no law has been broken. If that is the case, then why is there such an uproar about Arizona asking for ID to prove they are an American citizens? I have not reseached this but a sworn law enforcment officer told me this to my face. Was he lying? Why would he lie?
     
  5. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    He was lying. In Terry v. Ohio the officer must have "reasonable articuable suspicion" (RAS) that a crime had been or was about to be committed. Officers can not simply go up to people unless a crime is "afoot" and ask for ID. Officers are trained to lie. Officers are allowed to lie to collect evidence.

    Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Terry v. Ohio
     
  6. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    Yet another example of a copper making up his own laws because he felt like leaning on you. This may come as a shock, but police are not experts on the law, and they sometimes try to bluff people.

    Early in my career, I had one try to pull that crap on me. I was just taking a shortcut through a well-lit alley from my apartment to a mom-and--pop to get a quart of milk

    Guy asks me for ID. Instead, I verbally told him I was the local newspaper editor. That sort of abruptly changed his attitude and demeanor.

    I really like it when some policeman starts telling me about Washington gun laws because I wrote a book on the subject. One King County sergeant told me one time his worst nightmare is to be giving a talk to some civic group about gun laws and suddenly spotting me standing in the corner of the room.

    It's like refusing to give a verbal consent to search your vehicle. When that happens, the cops will say something like, "You mean you'd keep me from doing my job?"

    Don't sucker for that kind of thing.
     
  7. rdb241

    rdb241 Puyallup Washington Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Thanx guys for the info. I had no clue when this happened. Without the knowledge of the laws, how was I suposed to know otherwise? He was fairly young and defiintly younger than I was. Thanx for giving the info so that will never happen again. Thanx for the reseach....I love this forum stuff. You learn stuff that you would not have known until you say something. :thumbup:
     
  8. rdb241

    rdb241 Puyallup Washington Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    2,038


    Thanx Dave..................................
     
  9. m1gunr

    m1gunr Tacoma Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    22
    +1
     
  10. mjbskwim

    mjbskwim Salmon,Idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,396
    Likes Received:
    7,616
    They are not ignoring the constitution by asking you for ID.
    They are doing what they are trained to do.
    Now if they harass you for not having ID,then they are in the wrong.
    Heck I can come up to you and ask to see your ID.

    That isn't my point.After the shooting in Lakewood,I would suppose any PCS would want to know why someone has a gun on their side. Wouldn't you be on edge if your colleges had been gunned down in a Starbucks and some gun toting' guys came struttin' in?

    Why do so many on here have to confront the police instead of just cooperate a little?
    Why be defensive instead of maybe carry a copy of the laws you stated,and hand it to them? Try to educate them?

    I'm not saying you have to give them your ID or do whatever they say.Just talk with them,in a civil manner.
    Not derogatory as to belittle them for not knowing better

    It's like all this knowledge going to waste.Y'all seem to have the laws down but don't know how to react with people.

    If there is always a confrontation with the police,they will learn to hate all of us.

    Like I have said before,I think open carry is just fine.
    But even I,as a gun owner,don't really like to be around people I don't know,that are carrying a gun.

    I've seen to many stupid people owning guns.
     
  11. WhyteCheddar

    WhyteCheddar East of Moscow by the Willamette Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    413
    You are not 100% correct. 'Probable Cause' (PC) is up to the officers discretion. And based on societal issues, (ie, insane people killing others with guns) someone without a badge carrying a pistol openly on their hip, particularly in a very public place is creating PC for contact. In fact,the individual who called 911 may be having their rights violated if police do not contact the subject. Public safety after all is mandated by the constitution as well.
    (note, I am not against open carry, nor am I FOR disrespect from or toward either the officers or the subject).
    I am of the position however that while the intentions of these folks open carrying is good, I think it is going to have a negative effect on gun owners rights.
    The constitution is an awsome document but as we have seen it can be severely damaged by certain politicians. If we turn too many voters into anti-gun voters we are not only going to lose open carry rights, but concealed rights and who knows where it will go from there. I am sure Australian gun owners felt secure in their rights at some point.
    Its like the guy I saw a couple weekends ago driving west on I84 with his deer (nice buck) hanging over the tailgate of his truck. Sure, all the hunters like me admired it, and it pissed off the anti hunters (who cares, they are already anti), but I am sure there were plenty of fence sitters who when home and wrote checks to PETA and the Humane Society of the US (very anti hunting). I am sure the same thing is happening here.
    I say open carry if you have to, I support it. My personal opinion is, help preserve your right to open carry by only doing so when it is essential and it makes sense and by doing your best to elect politicians who support the 2A as the founders intended it to be.
     
  12. mattg521

    mattg521 portland.,or Member

    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    17
    I thought someone clearly quoted the statute that says OC is specifically not RAS because OC is specifically legal. Barring some other RAS I gotta disagree with your argument there. The idea that simple OC represents some sort of RAS almost passes the smell test until the above stated fact comes out.
    Please discuss.
     
  13. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    Nope. There is NO STATUTE on OC anywhere in Washington state law. We have some court rulings and a state constitutional provision. And since there is no legislation making OC illegal, it is legal sort of by default.

    RCW 9.41.270(1) only governs the irresponsible, provocative or dangerous display of weapons. It doesn't say one way or the other whether OC is legal.
     
  14. Stumps

    Stumps Ashford, WA Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    11
    I don't open carry in the city. Broadcasting that you have a weapon is one part "go away" and one part "look at me". I much prefer to keep my weapon concealed when I am around large groups of other people. I also notice from the pics of a lot of the open carry guys they have no retention devices on their holsters. I do not understand open carry with no retention devices.
     
  15. riverrat373

    riverrat373 Washington State Member

    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    20
    I don't like the idea of an officer asking a person for ID unless a crime has been committed but at the same time I think that persons who are open carrying are putting themselves into the position of being asked. Attitude is paramount in having a non confrontational incident with a LEO! By acting the way the gun carrier did he may have just changed that officers attitude to the negative side about open carry. You are NOT going to win in a conflict with an officer of the law. I feel that if you are going to open carry you have to be diplomatic with any LEO's and citizens you may come in contact with.

    Dave Workman is right when he says that there is no law in the state of Washington stating that open carry is legal. By being confrontational,and generating negative publicity we may very well be faced WITH a law PROHIBITING open carry.

    Remember the adage, "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar".:thumbup:
     
  16. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387

    Well, having written the book, I know the statute pretty well and even remember vaguely when it was adopted and why (closet racism fear of armed Black Panthers ala Sacramento in 1967).

    Now, let them just try to ban open carry. Big mistake and here's why: Our state constitution specifically allows "bearing" of arms in defense of the self and the state.

    Say they ban open carry. About five minutes after the ink is dry on that one, a lawsuit will filed seeking a permanent injunction and challenging the constitutionality, and also demanding that the state, counties and cities be immediately prohibited from charging a fee for a CPL because that would be the only remaining avenue for packing a defensive weapon, and you cannot place a licensing burden on the exercise of a civil right.

    Besides, the appeals courts have already ruled that open carry is legal. That horse left the barn a long long time ago.
    :thumbup:
     
  17. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    . The United States Supreme Court has established that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the police to seize a person absent reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") of crime afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Accordingly, the Washington Court of Appeals has recently affirmed a trial court's holding that Washington law "does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere [open] carrying of a firearm in public." State v. Casad, 139 Wash.App. 1032 (Wash. App.Div.2 2007) (suppressing evidence of unlawful possession of firearms because stop of Defendant was not grounded in reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime).

    Further, even during a valid Terry stop, the United States Supreme Court forbids police to even conduct a light pat down or seize weapons unless the subsequent to RAS for the stop, the "an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is [both] armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." 392 U.S. at 24. Stated another way, only "o long as the officer is [both] entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed **and dangerous** . . .may [he] conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (emphasis added). So even if there were there to come a time that a Washington law enforcement officer properly seizes a person pursuant to RAS for brief investigatory purposes, the officer is not entitled to seize an openly carry weapon absent "reason to believe that the suspect is . . . [also presently] dangerous." Id. Should an open carrier stopped validly under Terry consensually produce a Concealed Pistol License, this fact weighs heavily against any officer's claim that the suspect is "presently dangerous" such that the gun maybe lawfully seized and serial numbers obtained. Accordingly, suppression of any evidence obtained in seizing the gun is likely under these circumstances.

    A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008).

    Unlawful stops of open carriers will result in suppression of evidence even if unlawful conduct is uncovered, allowing criminals to get off the hook.
    In Casad, see supra, the Appeals court suppressed evidence of the unlawful possession of firearms because law enforcement seized a man for merely openly carrying firearms in public. This result is not unusual, see Goodman v. Commonwealth, 2007 WL 2988343
    (Va.App. 2007) (same result as Casad), because the result is as a matter of federal Constitutional law commanded by the United States Supreme Court. As discussed supra, see Florida v. J. L.; Hicks.

    No qualified immunity available for law enforcement officials regarding open carrier harassment in Washington.

    As it is clearly established law that the open carry of handguns in holsters is lawful without a CPL, qualified immunity does not attach to your deputies for the unlawful harassment, ID checks, see Stufflebeam, discussed supra, and gun serial number checks, see also Hicks and J.L, discussed supra. Further, by way of this webform email I am putting you as the Sheriff, and the Office of the Sheriff, of actual notice in this matter, subjecting you to personal liability for damage claims under 42 USC 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

    In conclusion, please know that it is the constitutional right of open carriers to enjoy the same freedom of movement and right of assembly in society as those wishing to carry concealed, or not at all. The purpose of law enforcement is to help ensure open carriers enjoy these freedoms, not to stifle them.
     
  18. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    gogodawgs:

    Casad is NOT published opinion and it cannot be used as legal precedent because of that.
     
  19. WhyteCheddar

    WhyteCheddar East of Moscow by the Willamette Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    413
    It is simple. The state of our society is what constitutes PC and the associated response.
    Remember that for PC the officer only has to have a 51% concern that there could be a problem.
    Now imagine what would happen if the officer decided to NOT contact someone open carrying just because open carry is legal. If the person carrying the gun went on a rampage and killed a number of folks what do you think the repercussions would be?
    Officers should make respectful, cordial and reasonable contact and the subject carrying should make an equal effort to be respectful, cordial and reasonable.
     
  20. riverrat373

    riverrat373 Washington State Member

    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    20
    I repeat..........Attitude, Attitude, Attitude! Just be nice. Remember, a smart man picks his battles. You cannot win that argument unless you have lots of money for a good attorney.