Man cited for open carry in Vancouver,WA.

Discussion in 'General Handgun Discussion' started by Gojubrian, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. Gojubrian

    Gojubrian New Member

    6,262
    5
    0
    ?Open Carry? law controversy: gun owner cited | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | Local & Regional

    The martial arts instructor is a d-bag and so is the cop. :rolleyes:
     
  2. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    13,934
    3
    0
    If it is legal what was the ticket for? Scaring the pants off a kid touching douche bag.

    From what I can find there is no marital arts studio around albertsons in Vancouver Wa.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010

  3. UnderFire

    UnderFire New Member

    973
    0
    0
    1st: I want to say, I'm sure the LEO was doing what he saw fit to rectify the citizen's complaint. 2nd: The Martial Arts instructor needs to stop running around scared with his tail between his legs. BG's aren't going to open carry. This incident just re-enforces what I try to get across to members here about the consequences of printing, momentary unconcealment,etc. Although this is not a concealment issue the same rules apply. The general public don't view guns as we do here at FTF. In my state there's a statute on the books that basically states ANY weapon that is carelessly shown/displayed (printing,unconcealment) not in defensive manner is punishable by the law. I have stated the following before: That state laws aren't written so clearly that ALL have a plain understanding of it. All I can say is know and understand ALL the laws of your state that govern gun control. Hopefully Mr. Kirby can get a good lawyer and over-turn this.
     
  4. Gojubrian

    Gojubrian New Member

    6,262
    5
    0
    Doesn't matter what the general public views. The law is the law and the police should enforce the law.

    "Hello, police?"

    "9-1-1. What is your emergency? How may I help you?"

    "There some crazy gun with a gun on his hip out here. I'm afraid he may do something!" Hiyah!"

    "Sir, openly carrying a firearm is perfectly legal. If it it holstered then just leave him alone. Did he threaten anyone?"

    "KIAI! No, but guns are scary and I'm terrified!! KIAI SOOOO!!! The kids are in danger!!"

    "Look moron, do you eat every meal with a spork? Put your big boy panties on and go on about your 1/4" pine wood breaking. The man is not breaking any laws. If he gets too close, show him your blackbelt, that'll learn him. Pound sand and have a nice day."


    "b..B B but!"
     
  5. UnderFire

    UnderFire New Member

    973
    0
    0
    Goju, Look I'm on your side, the call should have never been placed unless the guy was threatening or careless with his firearm. It does matter about the general public because that's where most of these kind of problems start from. The LEO probably felt he was enforcing the law. Your OP has a quote..."manifests an intent to intimidate another OR that warrants ALARM for the safety of other persons". Granted, it's a loop-hole, but it's basically structured that if someone is scared about the sight of a gun they can call. In my state it's legal to open carry on private property. That law didn't stop LEO's from disarming me on my own land when they pulled up on my property to ask some routine questions about home invasions in the area. Again, I agree with ya'- the call shouldn't have been made, but when LEO's receive the call they have to respond and make quick judgement calls. Mr. Kirby should fight it and hopefully the judge will see it his way.
     
  6. Car54

    Car54 New Member

    2,103
    0
    0
    Let me add that when a call comes in to the police dispatching system they do not have the authority to screen calls for service. Only a supervisor can dictate whether or not a call will be discarded. Once the call is dispatched, the officer must answer that call and perform his duties. We can sit back and Monday morning quarterback his decision be it right or wrong however we weren't there.

    If everything was the way it was written, the proper thing for the officer to do was to go to the martial art caller and explain what the law was and how it pertains to the citizens and then call clear of the call, or have a supervisor meet with him and the citizen. Maybe there other circumstances that were not identified in the news report that had some bearing on the officers actions.

    Until the OC debate is decided one way or the other, there will always be people who are afraid to see people with guns. Maybe the media and certainly recent events have caused a panic in some who will immediately think the worst when a gun is seen, and call the police.
     
  7. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    I have never even been to Washington. In Texas, the complainant's fear must be reasonable. D'bag panty waist complainants bitch about all sorts of stupid crap. I get to point out their douchebaggery and tell them "No, I am not going to file charges in this case."
     
  8. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    There was no requirement that this officer cite Mr. Kirby. There could have been a little discussion about the douche who called 911 and that he was going to be cited for making a false police report.
     
  9. Car54

    Car54 New Member

    2,103
    0
    0
    I'm guessing that when it's all said and done, the ticket/charge will be dismissed with some apology from the city and or the P.D. The problem is the aggravation that Mr. Kirby is going through and what recourse does he have aginst the martial arts complainer...none that I know of. He may be able to sue the city but I don't think that will go very far either.
     
  10. ThorsHammer

    ThorsHammer New Member

    704
    0
    0
    I can't speak for Washington. I know that if somebody calls the police to report you for open carrying in North Carolina the law enforcement officer will not arrest/cite you on sight. They will assess the scene, and if you're just going about your business, they will ask you to leave since you have frightened someone. If you refuse to leave, well, there you go: free ride to jail or a citation.

    Maybe this guy argued with the law enforcement officer and said he wouldn't leave? :D
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  11. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    I would argue that the arrival of law enforcement to counsel the individual open carrying would create as much or more fear than just one person getting their panties in a bunch over a guy or gal with a gun on their hip.

    I might get fearful of someone walking their pit bull down the street, but the dog may be gentle as a lamb. Folks need to reign in their sensitivity tentacles on this issue.

    Police have better things to do!
     
  12. howquig

    howquig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    ’” OK, the battle lines are drawn. Is Kirby a suitable Open Carry poster child? Well, he’s certainly a persistent gun schlepper.

    Kirby declined to speak to the media Monday on advice from his attorney, but according to the police report, Kirby told officers he’s openly carried his gun into several stores in recent months without a problem.

    That’s good, right? Doesn’t spout off to the media straight away.

    But according to the police report, the day before being cited Kirby had a run-in with security at the Vancouver Mall. He and his wife were escorted from the mall by security after shoppers complained about their weapons strapped to their waists.

    Like I said, persistent. But Vancouver? That’s Vancouver in Washington state. Still, how many Americans are going to think he’s Canadian, even though the media will say “Vancouver, Washington” umpteen times? [Note: that must suck for residents, generally.]

    According to the police report, the Kirbys were belligerent, perhaps trying to argue that they were not breaking any laws.

    Uh-oh. Stay tuned. If not Kirby, someone.
     
  13. howquig

    howquig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    Kirby did nothing wrong.

    Now, the panty-waist martial arts studio owner is brandishing his deadly weapons — his hands — all day long. If he’s wearing his robe, or whatever they call it, in public, and someone becomes “alarmed” then will he be ticketed?
     
  14. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    This is what happens when you try to take back and exercise a right to that people stopped doing 50 years ago. Use it or lose it!

    I'll wager the security at the mall aren't armed. Are these security people the same type who watched a young girl get beat up at the mall?
     
  15. ThorsHammer

    ThorsHammer New Member

    704
    0
    0
    One thing that needs to be added to this: The mall is a private building. It's NOT a public building. If there's a notice on the doors that says "No weapons" then the owners can indeed throw you out, no questions asked, they can call the police and press charges against you for trespassing if you do not leave when asked to do so. Same thing as the old shirt and shoes rule.

    I think that remains to be seen. If he was belligerent at the mall, then he might have been belligerent in his attitude towards the law enforcement officer. That's generally a pretty bad idea. I don't know about you guys, but last time I misspoke to a cop (I was a bit drunk, and was trying to ask the officer a question) I was pinned against a wall by 250lbs of high-alert testosterone filled law enforcement officer.

    Some people just shouldn't open carry. Don't be that guy is all I have to say about it. It's not just that you are exercising a right, you are essentially representing the entire gun culture in a high profile activity. Dress nice, look like someone that a politician would want to shake hands with. Be smart about how you open carry.
     
  16. Car54

    Car54 New Member

    2,103
    0
    0
    +1 on ThorsHammers comments. Attitude can make or break any type of incident.