Portland Police.... LMAO!

[HighPlainsDrifter 466]

So, when we give in every time, we set a tone that just makes it harder, because the third party assumption (non-gun owner, non-anti-gunner) is that firearms are the presumptive bad guys who must prove their own innocence, rather than that firearm owners are just as innocent until proven guilty as any other person and provide the most important service to our society of any group: protection from tyranny.

 

I get your point. We gun owner's are the proverbial bad guy. I agree with you entirely and so do the majority of members on this forum. How can I make such an assumption? Look at how many members go out of their way not to show their faces on this forum. I've watched YouTube videos of guys shooting off their firearms wearing masks. So hat's off to you guys who contributed to the "so what do we look like thread".

 

When comparing Alaska to back home I like to say, "everything is the same but different". I do enjoy pointing out the cultural subtleties, especially when it comes to our attitude towards firearms. Sometimes I can be over boisterous about it.

 

Here is some more firearm facts related to Alaska...

• When entering the residence of another person, one must notify the resident that they are carrying a concealed handgun. This has made for some awkward situations so I have personally been in the habit of leaving my firearm in the car.
• On January 19th, 2013 a little over a month after the shooting in Newtown, the Wasilla High School Hockey club held their 29th annual gun & outdoor show.
• Alaska has a high rate of gun ownership coupled with a increased rate of mental illness. The outcome is we lead the nation in gun related suicides per 100,000 people.

I believe I just derailed the thread so I'll tone down the "Alaskan" theme with the completion of this post.

 

Come on up, the salmon fishing is great!

[Remek 771]

So, when we give in every time, we set a tone that just makes it harder, because the third party assumption (non-gun owner, non-anti-gunner) is that firearms are the presumptive bad guys who must prove their own innocence, rather than that firearm owners are just as innocent until proven guilty as any other person and provide the most important service to our society of any group: protection from tyranny.

 

I get your point. We gun owner's are the proverbial bad guy. I agree with you entirely and so do the majority of members on this forum. How can I make such an assumption? Look at how many members go out of their way not to show their faces on this forum. I've watched YouTube videos of guys shooting off their firearms wearing masks. So hat's off to you guys who contributed to the "so what do we look like thread".

 

I wasn't asking you about making an assumption, my comment was meant to say that the uninvolved bystander (the non-gun owning, but not against guns outright, i.e., those who we have a reasonable chance of convincing), must be asked to look closely. If he sees us acting like we are guilty of anything, like a smoker who balks when everyone re-informs him he shouldn't even though its not illegal, well, I see the third party person saying "well, its a bad thing, whether its legal or not". I think, personally, we need to be clear that its a right, and put it to the point that the third party person goes and finds out why we can do as we do.

 

That said, I thank you for pointing out our faceless anonymity. We do hide. I am pretty sure it is because without knowledge of who we are, or at least provable knowledge, we cannot be found by a tyrannical entity. I haven't posted my face either, and I am now on the fence. I should be flagrantly proud, but your comments are forcing me to reconsider. I think I will be posting soon, so make sure your computer screens are off, if you want to keep it from breaking!

 

Thanks for the information on AK gun laws. What I find most interesting is the gun utilized in suicide. I have wondered repeatedly why there are so many gun deaths per capita, but I didn't know why. I never discussed it because I did not want to provide ammunition for attacking our rights. Per the leaving gun in the car, I do the same, but only out of respect for the homeowner. If they don't know I am likely to have a handgun, I do not want them to think I am coming into their house without due respect. If they do know, I don't worry about it (like a friend's house).

 

I had actually planned a summer visit 6 years ago. I had planned a whole month of fishing both on the coast and inland, but it all fell through because my wife became pregnant with our first child. I dropped the plans because I felt saving money for the child was more important. I still have the goal to go up there, but I think I will be waiting until the kids are old enough to enjoy it, too, and maybe have a more stationary trip (less travel through the state, maybe rent a house on the water).

[Aram Fingal 11]

That is actually an incorrect statement. WA allows for open carry. I was a little confused about this one too because there are some weird laws about "brandishing" or some such nonsense, but I asked my county Sheriff (not a deputy, the actual Sheriff) about this and he said we absolutely have the right to open carry in WA. That he and his deputies would never harass someone who was open carrying unless they thought they were up to no good for some other reason. And I am on the western side of the mountains so it's not like this isn't a fairly "liberal" area (still trying to figure out when the term "liberal" meant LESS rights). I had read somewhere that the policy could give you trouble for "brandishing" just because someone saw it and "felt threatened" by it and he told me that in his opinion that was not the case. He said the act of carrying openly did not constitute a threat and if the person was simply scared of your gun for no good reason, that was their problem.

 

That being said, I still don't open carry because I don't know what the city cops will do and don't really want to get in to a confrontation.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you have said. I don't like that there are so many guys who seem to be deliberately open carrying to get in a confrontation with the police. This gives ammunition to the anti-gun people and the wrong impression to the people who are basically neutral. However, I have recently been considering starting to open carry exactly because I want people to see that there are reasonable people who carry firearms. A lot of the youtube videos show "scary" guys (shaved head, scraggly beard, dark sunglasses, combat boots, etc) so maybe we need guys like me out there wearing shirt and tie carrying on a daily basis to get people used to it. It actually would make my life a lot easier in the summer time when I don't usually wear a jacket and sort of run out of places to put a gun. I end up carrying a Keltech PF9 in a pocket holster but since pocket space is at a premium in the summer it would be nice to free that pocket up.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to fill you in on what my Sheriff told me when I asked him about this, because there does seem to be a lot of confusion about open carry in WA.

 

My state WA does not allow "open carry" but if you are carrying with a CPL, you may carry concealed or conspicuous. You may carry open or concealed without a licence in WA on your own property, but some of the courts have defined your own property to only mean areas not easily seen from the street or neighboring properties...

[Aram Fingal 11]

P.S. to what I said about open carry in WA.

 

While you do not require a CPL to open carry in WA (the C stands for "concealed" after all) it's still not a bad idea to have it if you're going to carry at all. You can get yourself in trouble if you have your gun in a holster on your belt and then throw your jacket on over it because you just went from open to concealed carry.

[gunfun 3,931]

Weird, because I have read the statutes, and court cases to the contrary...

 

Here is the primary,but not the only statute: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

 

Even if you were to use construction to treat "concealed" as a restrictive term under (1)(a), you would still violate this statute if you got into a vehicle without unloading first.

 

This is why it is important to read the law for yourself and not rely on what a cop or a guy on the internet like me thinks about it. Another cop might not agree with your Sheriff friend. Also, your friend may not know the difference between conspicuous licences carry and open unlicensed carry. You would be shocked how poorly many LEOs actually know the laws they enforce.

 

I have heard cops say what your's did, and others say the opposite. It really doesn't matter what they think, it is going to come down to what does the statute prohibit, and how have the statutes been interpreted by judges in your jurisdiction.

Edited February 26, 2013 by GunFun

[Remek 771]

You are right on GunFun. The problem is every state is different, and the wording must be interpreted in the context of the discussions that took place during its drafting and amendment process. The terms you are reading may very well have the meaning you are seeing as broadly described, or it may not.

 

This is compounded by.the jurisdiction of the decision made too. Usually district court decisions arent binding, because its not their purview to make law, but only follow it. The circuit decisions, however, are holding on every state in that circuit, and the supreme court is holding on all. So, you might read a decsion in another circuit and it conflicts with what you know, because that circuit does not apply to you.

 

The LEOs arent usually lawyers though, and even if they are, I doubt they are experts in 2A related law. Most lawyers only practice in one small niche because its always complicated. The LEOs however have to know the law on many subjects, so they have a basic understanding, and no expertise.

 

That said, it seems to me from reading the recent 2A decisions by the US Supreme Court, that you are allowed to bare arms in public. Also, we know you are, regardless what they say; its just good to know that even the highest court agrees. Therefore, many of these state restrictions are illegal.

 

I hope these issues go through before mao gets a chance to appoint anyone though, because this is killing me.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Remek

[gunman1 1,753]

^^^^^^^^Now breath in

Edited February 26, 2013 by AA re-cvrd

[Remek 771]

I have To do some research and figure out these emoticons here. I am so busy being stressed and annoyed that i dont have time for fin!

[gunman1 1,753]

I have To do some research and figure out these emoticons here. I am so busy being stressed and annoyed that i dont have time for FUN!

Fixed it for ya

[Remek 771]

thanks! HA!

[Aram Fingal 11]

It does seem to me that (1)(a) makes this entirely about carrying a pistol concealed. However you make a valid point that if you're carrying openly and then get in your vehicle, you're now concealing by the definition of the law. You could get in to trouble also if your shirt, or jacket, or scarf, or whatever, happened to inadvertently drape over the gun and thereby partially or completely conceal it. Therefore even if you're going to open carry, it would be advisable to have a CPL so that as your gun "transitions" from open to concealed throughout the day you aren't in violation. We should term this "Schrodinger's Carry".

 

Even if you were to use construction to treat "concealed" as a restrictive term under (1)(a), you would still violate this statute if you got into a vehicle without unloading first.