Wenatchee Confluence State Park head ranger bans open carry?

rapgood said:

Well... that is an interesting interpretation of the law. However, I am not convinced that you have considered the "reasonable person" standard (which is how a Washington judge would quite probably interpret the plain language of the statute). See State Right to Bear Arms in Washington analyzing Washington Courts reviews of Wash. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 24 and RCW 9.41.

In any event, it's been nice chatting with you.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

Click to expand...

color of law said:

In any event, it's been nice chatting with you.

Click to expand...

rapgood said:

In any event, it's been nice chatting with you.

Click to expand...

MSG Laigaie said:

Open discourse leads to positive information. "Chatting" is what we do here, eh? Not that anyone would add a snarky comment or purposely irritate others.



snark·y
ˈsnärkē/Submit
adjectiveNORTH AMERICANinformal
(of a person, words, or a mood) sharply critical; cutting; snide.
"the kid who makes snarky remarks in class"
cranky; irritable.
"Bobby's always a bit snarky before his nap"

Click to expand...

MSG Laigaie said:

Open discourse leads to positive information. "Chatting" is what we do here, eh? Not that anyone would add a snarky comment or purposely irritate others.

snark·y
ˈsnärkē/Submit
adjectiveNORTH AMERICANinformal
(of a person, words, or a mood) sharply critical; cutting; snide.
"the kid who makes snarky remarks in class"
cranky; irritable.
"Bobby’s Color of Law always a bit snarky before his nap"

Click to expand...

rapgood said:

Oh, I think that the interpretation is accurate.

Click to expand...

color of law said:

What statute section says "clearly visible to the public"? If it does say that then there is no such thing as open carry. If my gun is visible on my right side and the public is on the left side the gun is not visible.

Click to expand...

Dave Workman said:

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here?

The literal explanation is rather matter-of-fact. "Open carry" as pretty much everyone here knows, is the act of openly carrying a firearm that is "clearly visible to the public." It's not covered up. That doesn't change if people on the right can't see your left side, where a firearm might be positioned. The firearm is still not covered up.

:banghead:

Click to expand...

Oh, I think that the interpretation is accurate.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

OC is carrying a holstered handgun as we go about our daily lives.

It is not dependent on the carrier and not dependent on the viewer.

Whether the OCer is in a phone booth, strong side to the wall in a restaurant booth, on the other side of a hedge or wall makes not a scintilla of difference. If the standard of availability to see as conditions are met, it is OCing.

Click to expand...

Dave Workman;2232753[B said:

]

Originally Posted by color of law[/B]
What statute section says "clearly visible to the public"? If it does say that then there is no such thing as open carry. If my gun is visible on my right side and the public is on the left side the gun is not visible.

Click to expand...

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here?

The literal explanation is rather matter-of-fact. "Open carry" as pretty much everyone here knows, is the act of openly carrying a firearm that is "clearly visible to the public." It's not covered up. That doesn't change if people on the right can't see your left side, where a firearm might be positioned. The firearm is still not covered up.

:banghead:

Click to expand...

Dave Workman said:

Exactly. The explanation is matter-of-fact if one reads it properly, counselor.
England? Why would anyone want to live in England when you can enjoy the same sort of social nonsense by living in Seattle...in a tent?

Click to expand...

color of law said:

Neither you nor rapgood has pointed to a statute or a court case that uses the phrase "clearly visible to the public." In other words, your "rather matter-of-fact" statement is without support of the plain meaning of the words.
"Clearly" means in such a way as to allow easy and accurate perception or interpretation.
"Visible" means able to be seen.
Your "not covered up" does not play into the equation. Many courts have ruled that if the firearm is discernible, perceptible, or capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind it is not concealed. Not "clearly visible" as the definitions of those terms mean does not fit your explanation. The term "printing" means covered, but recognizable.

With that said, I'm still waiting for a statute or a court case that uses the phrase "clearly visible to the public."

Click to expand...

gogodawgs said:

Reasonable man doctrine...

Click to expand...

color of law said:

Neither you nor rapgood has pointed to a statute or a court case that uses the phrase "clearly visible to the public." In other words, your "rather matter-of-fact" statement is without support of the plain meaning of the words.
"Clearly" means in such a way as to allow easy and accurate perception or interpretation.
"Visible" means able to be seen.
Your "not covered up" does not play into the equation. Many courts have ruled that if the firearm is discernible, perceptible, or capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind it is not concealed. Not "clearly visible" as the definitions of those terms mean does not fit your explanation. The term "printing" means covered, but recognizable.

With that said, I'm still waiting for a statute or a court case that uses the phrase "clearly visible to the public."

Click to expand...

2a4all said:

I haven't seen the phrase you ask about, but here in Virginia, the phrase "hidden from common observation" comes close.
Code of Virginia
18.2-308. Carrying concealed weapons; exceptions; penalty.
A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon..."

Click to expand...

Adopting the majority rule that concealment is a question for the trier of fact to be determined on the circumstances of the individual case, we hold that a weapon need not be completely hidden from view in order for it to be concealed within the meaning of Code § 18.2-308. In this case, the evidence established that the arresting officer was able to immediately identify the object protruding from Main's pocket as a weapon when his point of observation allowed him to see the visible portion of the weapon. Because that point of observation was not unusual in degree or aspect when compared to the officer's initial point of observation, we find that the weapon was not "hidden from common observation" and, thus, was not concealed. Accordingly, we reverse Main's conviction.

Click to expand...