223to45
Regular Member
How is that?? 18-20 can open carry a handgun.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
State House bars openly carried guns in public gallery
- Thread starter 44Brent
- Start date
How is that?? 18-20 can open carry a handgun.
223to45
Regular Member
OC for ME
Regular Member
What RCW did those folks violate? COps didn't help us out with this question, or did they.
Primus
Regular Member
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2122417
State Senate bans openly carried guns in public gallery
[quote name="Primus" post=2122395]Enforce 9.41.270 and 9A.76.180 how?[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
Very simple, even though I would guess that you are going to look for a way to twist my words and c......
44Brent
Regular Member
RCW 1.001 states "Don't act like a jacka$$ in front of the media when they have cameras to capture your performance."
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
+100
The media is not our friend. They will use the most damaging images possible of gun owners. There is no reason for any gun owner to make that easy for them by dressing, speaking, or acting like the very stereotype of violent, under-educated, ill-behaved, poorly-spoken, mouth breathing, dangerous moron the media holds and wants to paint of us.
A firearm carried in a holster (or even a back sling) looks as good over a pair of new jeans or slacks with a collared shirt as it does over fatigues, ratty pants, or a dirty T-shirt. Polite comportment and respect for decorum mark a man as being civilized, while a blatant disregard for basic rules of civility are just cause to questions his commitment to abide more important laws.
Like it or not, we have to convince the voters that respecting our rights isn't something to fear. We need to avoid playing to their worst nightmares of what they think gun owners are.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
By that logic, moderate Muslims should not appear and condemn terrorism anywhere that anti-Islamic bigots have appeared and bashed Islam generally.
Sorry, but that is silly.
The morons who behaved badly, dangerously, perhaps even illegally got their 15 seconds. The media will make sure. The media will also make sure to bring in the anti gun bigots to attack all gun owners based on that? And you propose silence?
That leaves the morons and the gun grabbers to define the debate.
Nope. It has been said the extremes define the middle and if there is any good to come from some moronic conduct as exhibited the Washington State Senate gallery, it is that almost any other position on RKBA can look quite sensible in contrast. But only if the person taking the sensible position doesn't destroy his credibility by refusing to condemn conduce that every sane person knows must be condemned.
Now, we can quibble over exactly how the conduct should be condemned. And exactly which parts of the conduct need to be condemned probably vary based on local culture and laws. But condemn it. Then condemn the lack of action on the part of capital security. And then point out how very different the conduct is from proper, responsible possession of firearms (whether visible or discrete) for defense of self and family, and how we must respect this right with some statutory fixes.
I've seen you condemn the condemnation.
I've yet to see you write clearly any disagreement with the bad conduct (involving guns) itself. If I missed it, just tell me what post to read. If not, ask yourself why you are so unwilling to call a spade a spade?
When a supposed moderate Muslim refuses to condemn murder, torture, and terrorism, and instead equivocates with various justifications or wrongs against various people or trying to split hairs over word meaning, he loses all credibility in my eyes.
What these boys (and girl(s)?) did was not open carry. It wasn't free speech. It was irresponsible, dangerous, threatening, and very likely illegal conduct involving firearms. It has no more to do with OC than the typical bank robber has to do CC.
Every responsible gun owner can and should call it the spade it is. I don't want anyone getting a felony for it. But I don't want anyone thinking it should be repeated next week either.
Charles
44Brent
Regular Member
Some group of people caused articles like this to get written, and it wasn't Alan Gottlieb.
_____________________________________________________
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025505850_westneat21xml.html
Olympia’s gun policies behind times
Gun protests are supposed to show we live in a tyrannical police state. Instead they show the opposite: Our gun culture remains “anything goes.”
By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times staff columnist
I see the days of slinging on a semi-automatic weapon with a 45-round magazine and heading down to the House and Senate galleries in Olympia to wave the weapon around are officially over.
A ban on public displays of weaponry in the Capitol chambers was announced last week. Lawmakers reasoned that people haven’t been allowed to bring umbrellas in for decades. So maybe it doesn’t make sense to allow guns, either.
The truly remarkable thing about all this is the phrase “last week.” Let history record that it took until the second week of January 2015 — 125 years into statehood — before it dawned on our lawmakers that a semi-automatic assault pistol might be as problematic in a civic setting as a bumbershoot.
The purpose of last week’s debacle of a gun rally at the statehouse was to protest the tyranny of gun control in this state. But it demonstrated the exact opposite: Our gun laws remain laughably lax.
If you can put on a gas mask and stride around inside the state Capitol brandishing a gun, without ever being so much as questioned by law enforcement, that is hardly evidence of tyranny. It’s a sign anything goes.
According to The Associated Press, at least one of the citizens toting a long gun in the House chambers was 16 years old. You can legally possess a rifle at that age, but only in select circumstances, such as when hunting or on your parents’ property. Yet at the signature public building in the state, and supposedly one of the most protected, a 16-year-old walks in with a rifle and nobody bats an eye?
Some of the gun-rights folks upset about the passage of universal background checks, Initiative 594, seem desperate to get arrested to prove that we’re living in a gun police state. “Arrest me! I will not comply,” is the title of a video from a similar protest last month at the Capitol, in which guns were traded back and forth (though maddeningly for them, no arrests were made).
At last week’s rally, a Republican legislator urged the crowd to flout this mythical tyranny anyway.
“If it isn’t repealed, in every city, in every county across this state, we will not comply!” exhorted Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley. He added that he was calling on “God-fearing, self-reliant, freedom-loving Americans” to resist the checks and “turn this state around.”
The problem for this narrative is: Nobody stops you if you walk into the Capitol wearing a trench coat with your finger on the trigger of a semi-automatic assault weapon. Or if you’re 16 and you come into the statehouse with a hunting rifle.
Yet while that’s going on, we’re supposed to get worked into a freedom lather that somebody somewhere else could theoretically get popped for loaning a gun to a friend? Or that someone might someday be inconvenienced by a background check?
Next week, Rep. Ruth Kagi, D-Seattle, plans to reintroduce a common-sense bill to hold adults culpable if they leave guns lying around the house and a child shoots someone. As I wrote last fall, even Texas has this law. The theory down there is that the right of gun ownership carries with it responsibility.
Kagi told me the atmosphere around guns is so “toxic” in Olympia right now, due to the whole background-check faux controversy, that she isn’t that hopeful.
“We might have to go the initiative route again to get a gun-storage bill done in this state,” she said Tuesday. “We might have to go back to the people.”
Background checks, which are about as mild an example of gun control as one can possibly fashion, were approved last fall by a 59 percent vote (tyranny of the people?) It was the first popular pro-gun-control vote around here, suggesting the politics of guns may be shifting, finally, toward a more modern era.
Based on the zoo down in Olympia, we’ve still got a long ways to go. Like about a century.
_____________________________________________________
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025505850_westneat21xml.html
Olympia’s gun policies behind times
Gun protests are supposed to show we live in a tyrannical police state. Instead they show the opposite: Our gun culture remains “anything goes.”
By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times staff columnist
I see the days of slinging on a semi-automatic weapon with a 45-round magazine and heading down to the House and Senate galleries in Olympia to wave the weapon around are officially over.
A ban on public displays of weaponry in the Capitol chambers was announced last week. Lawmakers reasoned that people haven’t been allowed to bring umbrellas in for decades. So maybe it doesn’t make sense to allow guns, either.
The truly remarkable thing about all this is the phrase “last week.” Let history record that it took until the second week of January 2015 — 125 years into statehood — before it dawned on our lawmakers that a semi-automatic assault pistol might be as problematic in a civic setting as a bumbershoot.
The purpose of last week’s debacle of a gun rally at the statehouse was to protest the tyranny of gun control in this state. But it demonstrated the exact opposite: Our gun laws remain laughably lax.
If you can put on a gas mask and stride around inside the state Capitol brandishing a gun, without ever being so much as questioned by law enforcement, that is hardly evidence of tyranny. It’s a sign anything goes.
According to The Associated Press, at least one of the citizens toting a long gun in the House chambers was 16 years old. You can legally possess a rifle at that age, but only in select circumstances, such as when hunting or on your parents’ property. Yet at the signature public building in the state, and supposedly one of the most protected, a 16-year-old walks in with a rifle and nobody bats an eye?
Some of the gun-rights folks upset about the passage of universal background checks, Initiative 594, seem desperate to get arrested to prove that we’re living in a gun police state. “Arrest me! I will not comply,” is the title of a video from a similar protest last month at the Capitol, in which guns were traded back and forth (though maddeningly for them, no arrests were made).
At last week’s rally, a Republican legislator urged the crowd to flout this mythical tyranny anyway.
“If it isn’t repealed, in every city, in every county across this state, we will not comply!” exhorted Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley. He added that he was calling on “God-fearing, self-reliant, freedom-loving Americans” to resist the checks and “turn this state around.”
The problem for this narrative is: Nobody stops you if you walk into the Capitol wearing a trench coat with your finger on the trigger of a semi-automatic assault weapon. Or if you’re 16 and you come into the statehouse with a hunting rifle.
Yet while that’s going on, we’re supposed to get worked into a freedom lather that somebody somewhere else could theoretically get popped for loaning a gun to a friend? Or that someone might someday be inconvenienced by a background check?
Next week, Rep. Ruth Kagi, D-Seattle, plans to reintroduce a common-sense bill to hold adults culpable if they leave guns lying around the house and a child shoots someone. As I wrote last fall, even Texas has this law. The theory down there is that the right of gun ownership carries with it responsibility.
Kagi told me the atmosphere around guns is so “toxic” in Olympia right now, due to the whole background-check faux controversy, that she isn’t that hopeful.
“We might have to go the initiative route again to get a gun-storage bill done in this state,” she said Tuesday. “We might have to go back to the people.”
Background checks, which are about as mild an example of gun control as one can possibly fashion, were approved last fall by a 59 percent vote (tyranny of the people?) It was the first popular pro-gun-control vote around here, suggesting the politics of guns may be shifting, finally, toward a more modern era.
Based on the zoo down in Olympia, we’ve still got a long ways to go. Like about a century.
utbagpiper
Banned
No. It makes you unwilling to call a spade a spade. It makes you willing to let the worst behaved gun owner define the gun owning community.
It means you do not view the conduct in your Senate chambers as worthy of condemnation.
And it might hint at why Washington is having serious and successful attacks on your RKBA.
Charles
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
We heard for a year those same claims being made against the good people in Texas fighting for Open Carry. Almost all of it was hyperbole and lies. Did they make hoplophobes and fudds uncomfortable? Yes they did, but they got results, which they would not have by pointing fingers at others.
I want to see citations for these claims, not blogs.
I want to see citations for these claims, not blogs.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Wackos shoot up schools, pro gun people readily blame the state for wanting to restrict liberties for the actions of a minority.
Guy doesn't show gun decorum, and makes a scene, some of these same pro gun people blame him for their losses of liberty.
Always blame the state.
Guy doesn't show gun decorum, and makes a scene, some of these same pro gun people blame him for their losses of liberty.
Always blame the state.
utbagpiper
Banned
Articles like this just boil my blood. On any other issue of individual rights, including a whole lot of rights I can't find enumerated in any constitution but that have been created either out of whole cloth or by the judiciary using a fun house mirror to read the constitution(s) to find all kind of gems the authors never knew they had hidden in the penumbra, appeal to popular vote is considered barbaric, something an enlightened judiciary must step in to correct. But let it come to the enumerated RKBA and these same mental midget hypocrites will point to every opinion poll and popular vote they can find to justify their position.
And why is it that people who hate guns, who love massive welfare states, are so reticent to simply move to one of the fair number of States that already fit that bill? Even those who are there flee, then want to turn whatever place they find into a copy of the place they left. I grew up in Southern Utah and watched California refugees flock in to escape the high crime, vandalism, graffiti, and other problems of southern Cali. Southern Utah was such a nice place to live, for about a year and then these people started complaining about all the things we didn't have that their prior neighborhood did have. It never quite occurred to them that the problems they were fleeing might somehow be connected to some of the amenities and cultural norms they were now missing.
The papers in Utah are no better. It seems a conservative/libertarian journalist is as rare as a legal post '86 machine gun. We do our best to get a sane message out when the media deigns to allow it, knowing we won't get a fair shake. Mostly, we make sure that voting wrong on guns is a career ending move for most legislators. And we have the advantage of a very difficult citizen initiative process. Direct democracy is no way to secure rights. The passions of the masses are too easily manipulate and enflamed.
Good luck. And please keep telling the Californians that Utah is full of crazed religious nuts who won't let them get a drink.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
False premise.
Wacko shoots up school, and pro-RKBA people readily condemn the wacko, his criminal conduct, and then the State.
Morons violate a multitude of safe handling rules, decorum, decency, and quite possibly criminal statutes about brandishing, and a few gun people are reticent to call out the morons.
Why?
This wasn't some minor disagreement over how to carry a gun. Watch the video. There are gross violations of numerous safety rules, common sense understanding of principles against brandishing, and quite likely Washington State statute. Why won't you condemn such conduct?
Charles
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
No you just missed the premise and than added your own. Not saying yours is wrong. Tu quoque fallacy included though.
Don't twist what I have said. Loss of liberty is always the fault of the state. Whether or not I personally condemn the conduct of the individual is irrelevant.
utbagpiper
Banned
So long as "the State" is guided more or less by majority desires of voters, our public conduct and how voters perceive it is never irrelevant.
If we do not condemn bad conduct from those who claim to be within our ranks, then it is our own fault if the public and the public's democratically elected officials believe that such persons and their conduct actually represent the rest of us. If the choice is between permitting dangerous, provocative, disruptive conduct with firearms, or to ban all guns, I can't blame legislators for banning all guns. At least not unless I've made clear the false dichotomy and offer the proper, third course which is to ban dangerous, disruptive, provocative conduct (and impose proper penalties for same), while respecting the real right to carry a gun for self defense. NOT some supposed right to carry a gun to intimidate or disrupt, but the real right to carry a gun for self defense.
Yes, I know, legislators swear and oath to uphold the constitution. They are neither experts in the constitution nor in guns just like most here are not necessarily experts in Western Water Right law theory, or estate law, or two dozen other areas of law. It is the responsibility of law abiding gun owners to speak out against criminal, negligent, and just plain stupid misuse of guns just as moderate (or perhaps "real") Muslims need to speak out against terrorism, and the way real journalists speak out against the violation of rights by paparazzi or child pornographers.
Sorry, but in the real world, sometimes theory gives way to practice. Either responsible gun owners speak out, or else the criminals and morons set our image for us. And that means sometimes we have to condemn those who claim to be own. We have to be careful to avoid eating our own over minor disagreements. But when conduct crosses certain lines, we have to condemn our own. It would be far better instead, to privately educate our own and persuade them against certain conduct before they commit it. But some are highly sensitive to any suggestion that we should care at all about public opinion.
Charles
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Immigration + migration + cheating politicians + rich out of state donors/organizers + gov control of education
IDK man, blame a couple gun nuts if it makes you feel good
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Hey I want the Doctor who isn't an expert in healthcare.
Or the mechanic who doesn't know about cars.
Or a landscaper who can't figure out how to plant a shrub.
Yeah, politicians, a job where actually knowing the info required to perform the job is NOT a requirement.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
It's simple, it's elegant, it's logically consistent insofar as it goes. But something is lacking.
"The history of liberty is a history of resistance." Woodrow Wilson
If we have a duty to resist, and the state acts to restrict, then who's fault is it?
utbagpiper
Banned
And yet we'll all turn around tomorrow and rail on incumbent advantage.
I want the most experience mechanic, the landscaper with a proven track record, the doctor who has spent decades becoming the expert in his field.
But I want inexperienced politicians.
And I'm not saying I want anything different. I want guys who are both regular (though successful) citizens rather than "career politicians" AND who are thoroughly versed in dozens of different matters of constitution, policy, and law.
I hold myself in pretty high regard and even I can't fill the resume I just wrote.
Plus, you might have noticed while working the campaign trail that a lot of voters are very suspicious of anyone who might be smarter, richer, better educated, or more successful than they are. They want a guy who is "nice", or who can relate to them, or who "listens to them" (ie doesn't ever disagree with them).
Look around this site, how many of the really smart folks can remain civil with people who agree with them 95% of the time? How do you figure such people do when asking for votes from people who probably disagree with them at least 50% of the time?
Politics is a people game, not a game show of who knows more about the constitution. Good ideas and flat out being right are fine. But they don't win elections. Making people feel good wins elections. You'll readily agree why I've never won an election as a candidate. Then look in the mirror, and look at the other gun people you know.
Reality can be painful and scary and depressing. But we can't hope to succeed if we don't deal with reality.
Most guys who win will not be experts on RKBA. They will need our help. The rare guy who is an expert on RKBA, may not be an expert at parliamentary procedures, or 1,000 other subjects on which he will have to vote and on which most of his constituents will judge him.
Sorry to be the bearer of hard news. I highly recommend two books by H.L. Richardson, "What Makes You Think We Read the Bills" and "Confrontational Politics". As the former State Senator points out, the system works very well. It just works very differently than you think it does. I was privileged to spend a day in a political activism seminar put on by his group some 15 years ago. It has been most helpful. I recommend it highly if they are still doing it and if you can find them.
Charles