Washington State -v- Tarango

[RicInOR]

Second and Fourth Amendments

"Since openly carrying a handgun is not only not unlawful [in Washington], but is an individual right protected by the federal and state constitutions [as the Washington Supreme Court had earlier held]," it cannot "be the basis, without more, for an investigative stop."

Love the double negatives.

In this case, I am not sure I would have reached the same conclusion. Reporting Party says Tarango had handgun in hand. That is for some concern depending upon setting/context. In this case a parking lot adjacent to a store. RP called 911.

Any of us, in the good old days, could have been spotted like that. Buy/sell.

Anyway, the question was did the police have sufficient cause to search for said handgun?
No reported threats - brandishing -

If police roll by say "what's happening, no search" ... maybe they prevent a crime by their mere presence. Bad guy sees cops, chooses not to rob store. If they knew Tranango, then maybe that would give them further cause, tho it does not appear that way from the article.



In general, I like the idea that just because Joe Resident sees a gun, they can't initiate a "SWATTING."

Read More

 

[DB is Here]

Seeing a gun worn openly in a holster is different than carrying it in your hand in public.
One wouldn't cause me any concern, the other appears hinky.

Please tell me if I missed "The obvious" here.

 

[awshoot]

....
In this case, I am not sure I would have reached the same conclusion. Reporting Party says Tarango had handgun in hand. That is for some concern depending upon setting/context. In this case a parking lot adjacent to a store. RP called 911. ....

It is worth remembering that the usual process for denying law abiding citizens their Constitutional rights, is to start with a case where an obvious bad guy is denied his rights -- they're easy to hate afterall. That becomes a precedent which through extension, gets applied to good guys in the end.

A great example in the context of the 4th Amendment, is Smith v. Maryland ( Smith v. Maryland - Wikipedia ). In that case the SCOTUS ruled that a warrantless search was OK, probably under the influence of a desire to see a purse snatcher and stalker do his couple years in jail. That case is one of the foundational decisions for the warrantless monitoring of everyone's telephone data -- see Third Party Doctrine: Third-party doctrine - Wikipedia -- so that less than 40 years later, even sweet old cat ladies who won't even kill a spider are under constant pervasive surveillance. NSA performed warrantless searches on Americans' calls and emails – Clapper

In somewhat positive news on the topic, the SCOTUS seems to be reigning in the Third Party Doctrine at least to some degree -- any ruling upholding the Bill of Rights (in this case the 4A) is a good decision: Supreme Court rules police need a warrant for your cell phone location data

Let us hope that 2nd gets some love too.

 

[The Heretic]

The old "you can trust us, we will only use the power you give us against bad guys" and "you have nothing to fear as long as you obey the law" ploy.

I remember when they said this for the Patriot Act and then they started using it against drug dealers and so on. Give the gov a tool to use and they will use it and abuse it.

It has even infiltrated cop shows too; NCIS is an example - about every fifth show they threaten some bad guy citizen with shipping him to Guantanamo - seen it used in other cop shows too. Kind of like the KGB threatening to ship someone off to Siberia. How easily the hack into both civilian and gov. computers and so on. Like the cop shows are conditioning the public to see this as acceptable behavior by LEOs.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

To "bear" means to carry. Even Ruth acknowledged that one.

I had a thought this morning. A lot of the firearms laws have their power taken from a horrible supreme Court decision almost a hundred years ago. At least that's what I "heard" is that it's a tax code violation which was created because of the ruling on being able to regulate things that are neither interstate nor commerce based on the interstate commerce clause.

The basis was that if it indirectly effects interstate commerce it can also be regulated under the necessary and propper portion.

Could they be afraid to take 2A cases at the supreme Court level because someone might challenge this obviously bad decision? It is what all federal abuse of power appears to hinge on?

Maybe not, they do appear to be taking 2A cases now.

It makes sense to me though that if you attack the root the tree will fall.