As I mentioned on Saturday coming out of the closet has it’s price. But that price could probably have been lowered with a little bit of planning.
Fish Or Man should have found an attorney prior to coming out of the closet. Getting funding ahead of time would have been a good idea too. The attorney could have researched the case law related to the laws in question. Sometimes the case law will essentially turn what the legislature wrote into something very different than what the average person would think it to mean. Once Fish Or Man decided to actually proceed he would have had a much more accurate view of what the cops could charge him with and how to respond. He could have had a note from his lawyer to hand to the cop saying, in great detail, this is the law and my client is not violating it.
So, Fish Or Man wasn’t as prepared as he should have been. This doesn’t mean that he is totally screwed yet or that we should abandon him. I have the 23rd off from work and if the roads are decent and I can talk my wife into a trip to Spokane (about a 2 hour drive for us) I will be there to watch what happens on his first court date. It may be that Fish Or Man is an embarrassment to the gun community and he should be “left hung out to dry“, or it could be that he is guilty only of lack of planning and we need to support him. We’ll see and I’ll report back later this week.
I was expecting to eventually be charged under 9.41.270, the same law charged against the man in the seattle area that was carrying a AK peaceably. I did not believe, and still do not believe carrying a handgun in the manner I carry is on the same level as the AK carried, (who is also the only person charged under this law that was carrying peaceable). Yes, I admit lack of planning on my part. I may have expected the eventually charge, but I never imagined what I received thursday night. I am still running on empty. And now finding out that Ellensburg wants me for a “gun violation,” I am additional screwed. In the eyes of the public and in how I feel. Anyway, thursday is an arraignment hearing, and the issues will be on far more then a gun violation. So much more has, and will likely be added, that I am not a viable person for support from the gun community. Truly, I never wanted to be. I will fight the battles as they come. If the Ellensburg situation is only a “gun violation” about open carrying “warranting alarm” or “manifesting intent,” I may truly have the support of gun owners. Anyway, I hope to not be a convicted felon when Ellensburg tries to make an example of me.
As I live in the PRoMD I would not be able to make it out to court that day. I will be looking forward to your report when you get home from Spokane as I know you will give all of us the strait shot.
This case has been discussed on the WA-CCW list. Executives of CCRKBA and SAF have weighed in; it’s very unlikely that he’ll see monetary support at the trial level. If there’s an appeal, and if it looks like a test case ripe to help the shooting establishment, then there is the possibility of some assistance.
Fishman, I’m sorely afraid that you flunked the attitude test, pure and simple. If you want to be a test case, then get your ducks in a row, line up your attorneys in advance, and pick your battles wisely. Flaunting a gun of any sort in front of a cop and daring him to arrest you results in getting arrested, whether the charges stick or not.
I hope you are able to plead your case well, and can chalk this up as a learning experience. I think you made an error, but you might very well have lost your gun rights forever as a felon.
We do NOT want to be a test case.
If bowing to those acting like tyrants is the requirements for this support, we must pass.
Flaunting a gun? Daring for arrest? We did neither of these.
Trying to live life freely, (which is much more then just the freedom to bear arms), guilty.
My first question: Is there a reason you cannot/will not obtain a CCW permit? It’s a fairly simple process. Are you a felon?
It sounds to me as though you are a professional victim, or would-be martyr. Either is fairly stupid. No, I don’t see any mainstream gun associations coming to your defense.
Strikes me your attitude sucked, and you essentially asked for what you got.
The point is the state is requiring that you get permission to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. Fish Or Man has expressed himself fairly well with these posts:
The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It also allows the individual States to regulate as they see fit. We might not like it, but that’s the way it is.
I read more of Jason’s blog in-depth. He is a cause wanting to happen, and I fear he has gotten in over his head this time. I, as a former deputy sheriff, have no compassion for him at all. He seems to be a strident, loud and arrogant person.
If you will read of his Ellensburg experience, you might understand what I mean. He seems to have an innate hatred of any authority, and this time he just might be in serious trouble.
Check out the Washington State Constitution:
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Requiring a license to carry is an impairment.
That said, Wayne, I do not fully support him (yet) for similar concerns about his “attitude”. By his own admission he has become “not calm” when confronted by law enforcement. That is a HUGE deal for me. If one is going trying to be the next “Rosa Parks” then you need to realize the role the police play in “the game” and that you can’t give them ANY reason to take things “to the next level”.
I plan to be at court for his first appearance to try and get a better feel for what this guy is like. Should he be a “poster child” for the gun community or not? At this point I don’t know for sure. I’m still evaluating and I will report back as soon as I have more information.
And another thing…
During my time as a deputy, I ran across quite a few people carrying. If they were sober, responded in a rational way when I spoke with them, I had no problem. The key is in how you respond to an officer. He will most likely be respectful, expects the same in return. If you respond in an argumentative way, then expect an escalation from the officer, as he has no idea why you are so defensive.
I let many pass, simply because they were decent, responsible citizens that posed no threat to anyone. They were also nice when first stopped. It counts for a lot. Remember that.
As to Jason’s ability to express himself…maybe a little refresher in grammar and spelling would help???
He deserves what he gets.
I see where you are coming from, Joe. If you are able to attend his court date, advise as to what you think.
Personally, I have already formed an opinion, just from what he has written.
It isn’t a good opinion.
Keep me informed, please.
As soon as law enforcers put political agendas before the law (which it sounds to be the case by this deputy), we’re all in a lot of trouble. The cops can see you doing something they don’t like, such as exercising your second ammendment rights, and make up some charges to get you arrested and lose your gun. It sounded like the cop that harrassed Fish was really proud of himself for violating the second ammendment outside the law.
I agree with you about the political agendas and the law. But keep in mind we essentially only have one side of the story so far. I’m not convinced the police have really stepped over the line yet. Also you can bring a lot of trouble on yourself–as I point out in this post:
Yeah screw him. Throw him to the wolves. Only perfect people with bright white smiles and gazillions of dollars to hire attorneys in advance are allowed to exercise their rights. You jackasses.
Has the ancient crime of lese majeste (failing to respect the king) been added to the criminal code? Wayne, you sound exactly like who Sam Adams meant when he invited your ilk to love your chains.
indirection perverts me, but I enjoy a specious prickle with a side
order of joker problemss.
Two half-wits are better than one. But many chiasms spoil the
plumbagin. And a rolling adverb gathers no heterogony.
Furthermore who William Wetzel filigree Annie Duke, she forgo my
homesteader yet landslide him.
I’m a colonial and I’m okay; I deglamorize all night and I repurify all
Minh Ly Temple has a large collection of courageous nitrocelluloses,
which she uses to outsource her felt.
Your humbler gab barrages melodramatically.