State Senate bans openly carried guns in public gallery

[triehl27]

A PAST Capital Rally

Anyone that wants to argue my point above, here is a past Capital Rally Announcement. See how it compares to how the recent rally went down.

I have pretty much everything in place.I just received a call from Clint Didier who will be attending also and will speak on 2A issues and where we are headed.Other speakers are Shiram Hadian ,Phil Watson of the SAF ,Dave Workman,Mark Knapp (attorney),sate representative Dave Taylor,and others.
There will be a table for kids with prize bags , balloons and other patriotic goodies.there will other participants such as WA.guns ,south sound Patriots Constitution Party Garrette Loyde King and others that supported us last year.The program will open with Kerry Hooks singing the National Anthem ,the Pledge of allegiance and a veterans tribute and prayer.This is expected to be huge and KIRO has mentioned they were going to cover this event. Attendence could be thousands .


Jeff Hayes (orphan ) will head the security team which we still need some help with.
As we are trying to present an extremley positive image I would ask that long guns be left at home.This is not about what we own ,but a show in mass of support for our 2nd amendment rights.State patrol has requested that if long guns are displayed that they be slung over the back ,muzzle down,no mags and bolt open.Security will also be verifying that this is the case and no one is handle ling weapons.
Also dress appropriately please as it is a positive image of law abiding gun owners we are to portray.
I would also ask help with sodas coffee and water .If folks could bring some coolers with this and maybe pick up some of those coffee boxes from starbucks would be super.Pleas pm or e-mail me with anything you can help with. - DEROS72

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

A voice of reason in a sea of turmoil....

 

[OC Freedom]

A voice of reason in a sea of turmoil....

Agreed.

 

[b0neZ]

Something to ponder:

Sometimes, when a group or cause is being protested, that group inserts a few provocateurs into the mix of those who are protesting to stir things up a little and make the protesters look less than favorable in the public view.


This has been a practice for many years.*

I'm not saying that this is the case for this particular situation, as there is no sure way for us to know, but it might, repeat *might*, be something to keep in mind.



*no articles to cite, just stories from those who were caught up in a few protests over Vietnam, etc. and just happened to be in the right place at the right time to overhear things "kick off", so to speak.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Something to ponder:

Sometimes, when a group or cause is being protested, that group inserts a few provocateurs into the mix of those who are protesting to stir things up a little and make the protesters look less than favorable in the public view.


This has been a practice for many years.*

I'm not saying that this is the case for this particular situation, as there is no sure way for us to know, but it might, repeat *might*, be something to keep in mind.



*no articles to cite, just stories from those who were caught up in a few protests over Vietnam, etc. and just happened to be in the right place at the right time to overhear things "kick off", so to speak.

imo, they are all provocateurs in the pure sense of the word.

a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator.

I have been accused of same, however, I think maybe I am just a bit over opinionated. I would never thing to act so recklessly.

 

[Mr45ACP]

Agree 100%. Walking in to a state capital with a long gun brandished at the low ready is asking for trouble. In some places that will get you shot without warning. And a bayonet fixed to your rifle? Just stupid. Barging into the state capital brandishing guns will only result in more restrictive legislation. People need to smarten up. Further provocative behavior could very well get open carry flat out banned in the entire state. You can exercise your rights but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Do it the right way. If you don't, you run the risk of screwing it up for everyone.

You know I got out of OCDO, when it started changing direction a few years back. But, back then, alot of the discussion was how to properly do OC, how to present OC in a Professional, Calm manner. We did the Oak Harbor visit, rifle slung ON BACK, pistols remained in holsters. Gatherings in parks and at Willow lake, I don't think any brandished a gun and there were some cool ones in holsters. NO ONE GRIPPED, NO ONE DREW, NO ONE HANDLED. Meet organizers were clear and concise. NEVER IN ANY OF THE MEETS OR PROTESTS I ATTENDED FOR 3 YEARS, WOULD FIREARMS HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN THE MANNER DISPLAYED AT THE CAPITAL. When there was a Problem such as Starbucks, WE oc'rs took the responsibility, we pushed Starbucks, they pushed back, and showed us the door.

Then we had the Starbucks Photo. After that it just seemed to me to become a fight just to fight against the "antis" "lets embarrass the police", "lets cause OC incidents".

The law is in place and instead of wanting the change it or organize to change it, OC'rs BLATANTLY DEFIED IT. And now as I read the posts here, there is so much name calling and angle adjusting and spin doctoring, the story "I saw this", "I never saw that", "*THOSE* people need to adjust how they view us ". Instead of just saying "Hey we screwed this one bad, the cause is set back A HELL OF A LOT" and that's the truth.

Those at the capital that wanted to show defiance, you did. What did you get? BANNED! In a time sensitive to firearms,(T.S. accept that threw the use of firearms by criminals the firearm culture has taken a HUGE hit in recent years) when firearm crimes leads the headlines, the capital group looked like vigilantes. They looked like a militia. THEY LOOKED FRIGHTENING TO THE PUBLIC (the people who's mind's you want to change). Right or wrong, the crowd at the capital, looked embarrassing to the OC cause, they were proclaiming for. They looked like what every ANTI wants the voter to see, Scary, Careless, Reckless gun nuts. The DAMAGE is done. Take responsibility for it. I'm sick of the excuses, I would like to see some return to the old ways, and patterns for the OC cause.

You can hate me for writing this, you can disagree with it, but this has been the topic of discussion among every firearm person I know in recent days. This is coming from an OC'r. Retired member of this site, who was there at Willow Lake, there on King 5, there in the trenches for 3 years. An OC'r that watched the media coverage both back then, and now and has read the threads here once again. Watch the media coverage from back then on how we were portrayed, then watch the coverage about the capital display and how gun owners are displayed today.

Remember, it is the sheeple that vote, scare the sheep, and you see the way they go.

TR

 

[Bill45]

I have discused this issue and showed the pictures with all my friends, all of which are gun owners and OC or CC and have for decades.
They all commented that if they saw a man walk into a building with a weapon at the ready they would shoot first and ask questions later.
The whole bunch should have been arrested for intimidation with a deadly weapon.

OCDO will turn not only the "normal" gun community against it but the general public as well.

Whom ever organized the Olympia fiasco let it get out of control.

One more episode like this and we could have mental exams required before every purchase of a firearm.

Bloomburg would be proud of you.

 

[Mr45ACP]

I think you are quite correct. In the minds of many, this type of behavior serves only to reinforce the need for background checks before purchasing a firearm.

I have discused this issue and showed the pictures with all my friends, all of which are gun owners and OC or CC and have for decades.
They all commented that if they saw a man walk into a building with a weapon at the ready they would shoot first and ask questions later.
The whole bunch should have been arrested for intimidation with a deadly weapon.

OCDO will turn not only the "normal" gun community against it but the general public as well.

Whom ever organized the Olympia fiasco let it get out of control.

One more episode like this and we could have mental exams required before every purchase of a firearm.

Bloomburg would be proud of you.

 

[BobR]

Sometimes, when a group or cause is being protested, that group inserts a few provocateurs into the mix of those who are protesting to stir things up a little and make the protesters look less than favorable in the public view.

I would tend to agree, but in this one particular case I don't think that is the issue. I know we have enough ****tards within the firearms community to pull this off without any help from the outside, sadly.

bob

 

[Mr45ACP]

If I was a liberal state legislator intent on banning open carry, this would be my exhibit A. I don't think I would get much push back. People have to be smarter than this.

 

[Whitney]

Perspective

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, perspective depends on which side of the fence you happen to be standing.

Here are some head scratchers for you to contemplate.

Would you be so quick to call these "activits" domestic terrorists?
How many infringements are you willing to accept?
Why are gun owners always the ones asked to capitulate?

As has been previously pointed out, the answers to the aforementioned questions all reside within the government.

You may believe you have the right to keep and bear arms, yet government tells you how and where; thus it is not a right merely a highly regulated privilage.


~Whitney
Freedom Fighter

 

[OC for ME]

...shoot first and ask questions later.

Some in the gun rights community will shoot folks for engaging in lawful behavior...hmm.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I would hope that the vast majority of members on this forum would agree as to what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, in my opinion, is tied directly to rights and duties of the citizens stated in the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizen retains the ability to exercise their right and their duty as stated in the DoI.

Who gets to decide when enough is enough? On this forum we tend to focus our displeasure on the regulation of firearms by the government. But government tyranny goes far beyond the regulation of firearms. In order for me to legally move a certain number of cubic yards of dirt on my own property from one side to the other, I have to obtain the government's permission. That's just one example. Different people will be pushed to different levels of action in defiance of government tyranny. Who gets to decide what level of defiance is appropriate? Did not a group of members of this forum pass firearms around on December 14th at the capitol claiming they were committing an illegal act by doing so in defiance of the government? Very few members on here would condemn that action. So why the condemnation of the people who protested on Jan 15th? Is it because their actions are actually provoking the government to show it’s cards and take action?

What do you think it was like when the first American colonist held a musket over his head and said, "Enough is enough, we need to do something about this British tyranny?" Did everyone come out of their houses with muskets in their hands and say, "Damn straight! Git r done! Let's go!" I'll bet there was a whole bunch of folks sitting in their houses saying the same things that some members of this forum are saying. "That darn Jebediah, doesn't he know he is going to ruin it for the rest of us, what a dufus!"

Did the protestors on Jan 15th provoke the government? Sure they did. No doubt. And will the government response affect a whole bunch of us that did not participate? Yes it will. But it isn't the protestors that are affecting your rights, it's the government! The government does not need to respond by affecting your rights. The government can respond by enforcing the rules and laws that are already in place, but the government is not choosing to do that. The government is choosing to further restrict the actions of everybody. Blame the government for that decision, not the protestors.

Do I personally feel that government tyranny has gotten to the point of taking up arms against the government? For me, personally, the answer is no. Do I personally feel that it is my place to make that decision for anyone other than myself? Absolutely not. Because I do not feel that government tyranny has risen to the level of armed resistance, I will not protest in the same manner as they did on Jan 15th. But I will not blame them for the government action that will affect me because it is the government that is taking that action, not the protestors, just as it was the British government that took action that affected all the colonists when the first few stood up with a musket and said, “Enough is enough.”
I will not call the protestors names like "dufus”; if I am going to call them any name at all it would be "patriot" because they have reached the point at which they feel government tyranny has risen to the level to warrant exercising their rights and duties as stated in the Declaration of Independence. "Alan Gottlieb, founder and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said he was disappointed with the behavior of some of the protesters in the House gallery on Thursday." Really? Because they were coming closer to exercising the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment and their rights and duties as citizens stated in the DoI? Save your disappointment for the actions of the government, Alan.

Great post sir. I personally believe a lot of the jeers come from folks who don't have the courage to make a little stink and therefore condemn those that do. I can't say there was anything courteous about the behavior of those OCers, but it sure got people talking. And even though I may not choose to behave in such a way I still will not condemn those who do.

 

[amlevin]

You may believe you have the right to keep and bear arms, yet government tells you how and where; thus it is not a right merely a highly regulated privilage.


~Whitney
Freedom Fighter

Have you ever considered that this is because all to many "gun owners" have demonstrated their irresponsibility? That they can't see beyond themselves?

Those that showed their stupidity at the rally through their actions are the ones that will precipitate more regulation. Rather than taking pictures of them and posting them all over "social media" the responsible gun owners should just "shun" them. I'd say "turn their backs on them" but based on their behavior that might not be a good idea.

 

[amlevin]

Some in the gun rights community will shoot folks for engaging in lawful behavior...hmm.

Take a look at the one picture at the center of the controversy and that's all one would need to defend themselves in a court of law. I doubt the jury would be out longer than it took to find ballots, fill them out, collect, and count. 15 minutes, maybe?

FWIW, this picture is a perfect example of what the law in OUR state was designed to prevent (RCW 9.41.270)

Question: Do you wait, when you see someone advancing on you with a weapon at the ready and is clearly NOT a law officer? Or do you defend yourself based totally on what you see at that moment.

Hint: Many who hesitate are often mourned at their own funeral.

Most, if not all comments regarding "shooting him" were in respect to what would happen if he pulled the same stunt in a "non staged" situation. Then again, how would a normal person, going about their own business, know that this "moment" was staged.

Take another look at the picture. Aggressive attitude portrayed, the clothing designed to conceal the firearm from authorities (remember Columbine), weapon at the ready and appearing to be fully loaded. All I can say is "he's lucky".

 

[utbagpiper]

"Alan Gottlieb, founder and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said he was disappointed with the behavior of some of the protesters in the House gallery on Thursday." Really? Because they were coming closer to exercising the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment and their rights and duties as citizens stated in the DoI? Save your disappointment for the actions of the government, Alan.

The real purpose of the 2nd amendment? To harass and intimidate? Maybe the proverbial shot across the bow? Save that for the navy.

If someone thinks it is time for armed revolution, time to start shooting, then he ought to put his actions where his false machoism is and get started. Until then, he is just causing problems. There is no halfway with revolution. You don't get to straddle the gap between working within the system, and shooting people.

There is unarmed, non-violent protesting. There is even some moderately destructive protesting ala the Boston Tea Party or sit ins that disrupt business operations. But introduce a firearm to those situations and you're playing with fire.

I've seen too much progress on RKBA the last 20 years to believe anyone should even be talking about armed revolution. I think to do so is an utter cop out, a pathetic attempt to justify terrible conduct. To justify brandishing, lack of muzzle control, and otherwise using the presence of a firearm as anything approaching intimidation of elected officials or the larger public becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: such conduct leads to the very conditions that then require armed conflict.

No sane man wants war so long as war can reasonably be avoided. The revolution was not grand and glorious. It was an 8 year slug fest with men freezing to death and starving in addition to the death on the battle field. It is widows and orphans at home. With modern medicine, war often leads to the kind of injuries that nobody thinks are sexy: colostomy bags, missing eyes, mangled limbs, paralysis. If war is required then such sacrifices may be necessary. But nobody with an ounce of humanity or teaspoon of good sense does anything to provoke such an outcome so long as they can be avoided. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Even a cursory review of history demonstrates that the most common result of revolution is to replace a bad government with an even worse government: The Russians traded the Czars for the Communists; The French Revolution quickly degenerated into a bloodbath of mostly innocents; Check revolutions throughout South America; Even many blacks in South Africa now admit they were better off under White rule than they are today. Revolution is the least likely way to secure liberty.

To refuse to render just judgment is the worst kind of cowardice. It is to refuse to even stand for good or against evil.

Make no mistake, fomenting revolution so long as there remains any other reasonable, honorable course is evil. Using threat of deadly force to intimidate duly elected officials when the election process is still fully functional is evil.

Actually effecting elections takes real work. Only a fool thinks that war would actually be easier.

Not to mention the fact that violent overthrow of the US government is the ultimate crime (treason) and as such any support for such conduct is grossly outside the limits of the rules of this board.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The real purpose of the 2nd amendment? To harass and intimidate? Maybe the proverbial shot across the bow? Save that for the navy.

Then why have a 2A?

 

[utbagpiper]

Then why have a 2A?

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between harassment and actual revolution. Warning shots are for naval vessels to prove the other guy is within range. Harassment is for those who lack the ability to actually make real change. Don't believe me? Let's see if any of these tough guys will try a repeat of their stunt in the face of simply Legislative rules to the contrary. What are they going to do when capital security shows up and orders them to surrender their weapons and places them under arrest? Shoot? Not likely. They'll comply and then bitch about how the judicial system is "rigged". Tacticool mall ninjas.

I do not believe it is time for armed revolution. The soap box, ballot box, and jury box still work well enough (not perfectly, but well enough) to effect needed change. But if someone disagrees, brandishing at the legislature is not the way to get started on revolution.

And to be clear, I'm a loyal American. Upon proper evidence I'll happily vote to convict for treason any US citizen who makes war on this nation. If necessary, I'd personal buy the ammo and pull the trigger to carry out the proper penalty for treason.

Handling guns, chambering rounds, and having sloppy muzzle control are no more a proper exercise of the 2nd amendment than slander, libel, or yelling "Fire" falsely in a crowded theater are proper exercises of the 1st amendment.

It is a real shame that some are so blinded by their own ideology that this even needs explaining.

Charles

 

[Dave_pro2a]

And to be clear, I'm a loyal American. Upon proper evidence I'll happily vote to convict for treason any US citizen who makes war on this nation. If necessary, I'd personal buy the ammo and pull the trigger to carry out the proper penalty for treason.

A lot of people who claim the same as you, want Snowden to hang.

Those who commit "treason," like "terrorism" (and in fact, crime) are always defined by the government, not people like you or I.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/11/david-gregory-wont-be-charged/

 

[utbagpiper]

A lot of people who claim the same as you, want Snowden to hang.

There is a reasonable chance that Snowden has actually engaged in espionage against our nation.

Had he blown the whistle on some illegal or even questionable NSA conduct and the high tailed it to the nearest Federal Courthouse to turn himself him, odds are very good that given the chance as a juror, I'd have voted against any criminal convictions. I'd even be reasonably sympathetic had he run off to some neutral nation to seek asylum.

But the guy headed straight for one of our most avowed and dangerous enemies: The Red Chinese. Then ran to Putin's Russia.

Did he have any information on his computer that detailed activities that weren't illegal but could be embarrassing or damaging, maybe for "insurance"? Was he able to keep that from our enemies?

What did he have in his head? Has he kept that from our enemies?

Whatever flaws our government may have, whatever infringements of rights of which it may be guilty, I'm not the least bit interested in trading it for the Communist Chinese nor Communist Russians. (I might actually trade Obama for Putin just so we had a president the world respected/feared rather than laughed at, but that is far more an indication of how bad Obama has been rather than any suggestion that Putin isn't terrible.)

Present sufficient evidence that Snowden divulged information that was properly classified and whose release damaged our nation, and I'll happily vote to convict and sentence to death. I'll personally tie the knot on the noose. If a dozen of my fellow citizens were to reach that conclusion without me being part of the jury, I'd have no problem accepting that We The People had determined he deserved that punishment. We just hired and delegated to government the job of doing the dirty work for us.

Whistleblowers try to make things better. Damaging our nation to the benefit of our enemies doesn't make things better.

Charles