Man flashes gun at school, arrested (drunk CCW permit holder)

[jpak]

http://www.yelmonline.com/articles/2011/04/22/local_news/doc4db201e6e1b0b963390130.txt

<snip>

A Roy man was arrested Monday after police say he brandished a gun during a confrontation at Ridgeline Middle School in Yelm.

<snip>

Officers said they also smelled alcohol on Barber and asked him to submit to a breathalyzer test.

He blew a .092 percent blood alcohol content, Stancil said.

<snip>

Normally bringing weapons onto school property is a felony. However, Barber was not charged with a felony because he has a concealed weapons permit.

<snip>


yet another "law abiding" "responsible" CCW permit holder - and the GOP/NRA wants MORE people to carry

reckless gun idolatry

yup

[msongs]

1. 2A has no restrictions on where to take guns or sobriety of gun owner nt

[jpak]

3. Yup - the Holy 2A is silent on these issues - this moran was a victim of anti-gun bigotry!!111

He was well within his Holy 2A rights to defend his daughter from the menace of parking space hog/thugs.

This is why we need Castle Laws and more concealed guns on the streets

to make sure this never happens again!

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[right2bfree]

162. There you have it: " We can pack loaded handguns while we are loaded with booze" anytime. nt

[Taitertots]

2. Someone broke the law and they will get punished

Sounds like the system is working perfectly. Are we to believe that making it double illegal would have stopped him?

[jpak]

4. but he won't be charged with a felony cuz he's got a permit

WTF

yup

[Taitertots]

5. His CPL is being revoked either way

Why charge him with a felony when he didn't commit a felony?

[jpak]

6. "Normally bringing weapons onto school property is a felony."

Permit holders get a pass - they shouldn't

yup

[rrneck]

7. Why? nt

[Taitertots]

12. Would that change have a demonstrable effect on the crime rate?

"Permit holders get a pass - they shouldn't"
Why? You done nothing to show that the change would have any effect at all.

[jpak]

15. Why? - did you read the OP? - the moran would now be felon and would not be able to own a gun

and repeat this crime

same for any other drunk CCW gun brandisher on school property

yup

[Taitertots]

16. That is not evidence that this change would produce a demonstrable effect of crime

Any other drunk CCW brandisher is already going to jail and having their CPL revoked. He is already going to be unable to repeat this crime.

[jpak]

18. Again - if he was charged and convicted of a felony, he would never own a gun again

gun play apologists are truly amazing

yup

[Taitertots]

24. Where is the demonstrable evidence that it will cause a decrease in crime?

Why should we do it when it will have NO effect of the crime rate?

[jpak]

28. dumb response - felons without guns will not commit other gun crimes

Advocating that felons should be able to own and carry guns is just plain stupid

yup

[Taitertots]

34. Why can't you demonstrate that your policy recommendations will work?

This man is both not a felon, and is going to have his carry permit revoked. Felons are already legally prohibited from owning guns, that is totally unrelated to this law.

[jpak]

37. If he didn't have a permit, he would have been charged with a felony

Allowing CCW holders to bring guns on school property is fucking stupid and this incident is a perfect example

What a stupid law - coddling criminals

repeal it

yup

[Taitertots]

40. Ok, now provide evidence that doing this would decrease the crime rate n/t

[jpak]

41. I just did - give it up

:rofl:

[Taitertots]

42. No you didn't

All you did was make unsupported, laughable assertions. Your refusal to understand that your policy recommendations should be supported by demonstrable evidence shows breathtaking ignorance.

[jpak]

44. Yes I did

yup

[DrDan]

43. you are kidding, right?????? Because it is reprehensible!

[Taitertots]

50. Than you should have no problem demonstrating that it will have some negative results

What is reprehensible if it has no effect of crime?

[Starboard Tack]

57. How can one be expected to provide demonstrable evidence of

proposed recommendations that have not been adopted? The question is inane.

[hack89]

88. So felons never commit gun violence? It is impossible for them to get guns? nt

[rrneck]

29. I just wanted to see

if you would come up with an actual reason. The way I read it, it's not a felony for a CPL holder to possess a firearm on school property, but possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol will result in revocation of CPL. Apparently, you would jump at the chance to declare anybody who carries a gun a felon because that's what you would like. That's just not the law in Washington. He will lose his license to carry. Therefore he will not be allowed to carry near a school. You assume he will try to carry near a school after he loses his license.

As usual, you can't differentiate between your desires and what you can prove will actually happen. Faith is like that sometimes. Fear-mongering in the service of faith to condemn another is quite common. It used to get people burned alive.

Do you not see how you made the leap from evidence to faith? Or how you would use that lack of self awareness to incite a rush to injustice in others? Not that everything I have said will matter to you other than prompt some non sequitur ending in "yup", but you're a good object lesson for others with an IQ greater than that of a gerbil.

[Simon Snath]

106. Permit holders don't get a pass. They lose their permits

In California (one of the most difficult states in which to get a CCW) doesn't give any "passes" for violations of the Penal Code. You brandish a gun and it's PC 245 (assault with a deadly weapon); automatic revocation of the permit, plus criminal and civil charges. By definition, a weapon may only be drawn and displayed when a person reasonably believes his life or the life of another, is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death. This guy should lose his right to carry. It's people like this who jeopardize the right to carry for others.

[right2bfree]

121. Its a felony here. nt

[rrneck]

124. Prove it. nt

[oneshooter]

127. Drive by, runs away after not proving a thing. Doubt it knows were it's at. n/t

[Euromutt]

126. There are still other charges that apply

We're dealing with a couple of different laws here.

First, under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.Code §922(q) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html) and § 924(a)(1)(B), possessing a firearm in a "school zone" (defined in § 921(25) as meaning "in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school") is indeed a felony. However, it contains an exemption for--among others--individuals licensed by the state (or political subdivision thereof) in which the school is located to possess the firearm in question. Which seems the least they could do, given that each "school zone" covers more than π million square feet (not to mention the fact that the law is constitutionally extremely dubious).

Then there are provisions under Washington state law, specifically RCW 9.41.280 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280). This prohibits possessing a firearm on school grounds only (no 1,000' exclusion zone), but a violation constitutes a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. However, CPL holders are only partially exempt, in that they have to be picking up or dropping off a student; any violation of the section will result in revocation of the offender's CPL (if any), and the offender being disqualified from possessing a CPL for three years.

That said, even though charges of possession of a firearm on school grounds don't apply, he can--as the article states--still be charged with unlawful handling (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270) and Yelm PD is filing to have his CPL revoked due to his being legally "under the influence." Both seem more than reasonable to me.

[GKirk]

8. Not sure how the law is written in that state

but I would agree he deserves to be charged with a felony.

[lawodevolution]

19. what would the felony be for?

[jpak]

22. Carrying a gun on school property

yup

[lawodevolution]

23. did you bother to look and see if that is a violation of law where he lives

or are you trying to make up law as you go kind of like in china?

[jpak]

26. Read the OP and learn something

yup

[lawodevolution]

32. they didn't arrest him because he has a CHL and it was legal to carry at the school

so why did you say he should be charged with a felony?

[oneshooter]

128. Legal in Texas, just can't go into buildings. n/t

[GKirk]

60. Well let's see...where do I start?

Drinking and driving, child endangerment (part of the drinking and driving) ,carrying a gun and drinking, brandishing a weapon (for no good reason I might add) and for making law abiding gun owners and CPL holders look bad.

I mean, come on, brandishing your weapon because someone parked 'awkwardly'? What a putz.,

[Hoyt]

53. Who cares what the law says? This SOB had two guns, was drunk and a mental case. Enough for me.

And the pro-gunners start arguing the law to try to make excuses for the SOB. They ought to be kicking him out of the pro-gun club.

[oneshooter]

56. You really don't care what the law says? Sounds like you believe

in vigilante justice.

How progressive of you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

72. "Vigilante Justice" -- What about you toters who have been preparing to shoot someone for years?

You know, you guys who post here about being able to shoot a 12 year old girl, etc. -- playing Jesus, judge, jury and executioner.

I just think the SOB toting 2 guns in a school zone, drunk and showing his gun as intimidation is reason to arrest the jerk and charge him with a felony. Then, a trial. There is plenty there to charge the guy with something serious.

[oneshooter]

89. Your own words advocate for vigilante justice.

"Who cares what the law says? This SOB had two guns, was drunk and a mental case. Enough for me."

It may be enough for you, but it is NOT what the law says.

What you want is above and beyond what the law allows. Thus "Vigilante Justice".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

92. Like gun toters don't walk out of their house prepared to commit vigilante justice. At least, I'd

Give him a trial.

[rrneck]

95. How is self defense vigilante justice? nt

[Starboard Tack]

64. Because they are masters of supercilious condescension in defense

of their distorted interpretation of the holy 2A.

[Straw Man]

73. Some more supercilious condescension.

Yes, the same holy 2A that protects your right to keep and bear flare guns in defense of yourself and the state.

[Starboard Tack]

101. Nope. Have them for safety. Coast Guard regulations. No 2A there

But they could come in handy in a pinch along with a Hawaiian sling and boathook. I'm totally Rambo'd up. Yup!

[Straw Man]

135. Foghorn Leghorn says...

"That's, I say, that's a joke, son."

But your willingness to use a flare gun as a weapon is cause for concern. Incendiary rounds are indiscriminately dangerous, not to mention inhumane. Banned by the Geneva Conventions, in fact, for anti-personnel uses.

[Starboard Tack]

146. What willingness?

I would never use anything as a weapon against another human or animal, including my hands and feet, except as a last resort. And when I say use, that includes brandishing a fist. I learned a few skills, as a young man, that have helped me defend myself and restrain others. Nothing complicated and nothing lethal.

[oneshooter]

147. So you have changed yourself once again?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=402502&mesg_id=403257


Starboard Tack (847 posts) Mon Apr-18-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. The guns I have are for personal safety and are mandatory
They shoot flares, not people, but in a pinch I would. Hope that clarifies some. I'd look pretty damn silly walking down main street with a 12 gauge flare gun.
Keep it real.


Yea, keep it real. And honest.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

148. In a pinch means in extreme circumstances

Where is the dishonesty? Maybe in your comprehension

[Straw Man]

151. It's still "willingness."

Words have meanings. Please stop the sophistry and the dissembling. "Extreme circumstances" are the same circumstances in which one would use a firearm. Somehow you think the use of a flare gun in those circumstances is morally preferable to using a firearm. It's not.

[Starboard Tack]

152. No of course it isn't morally preferable

I have no problem with using a firearm in extreme circumstances. Doesn't mean needing to carry one around strapped to my body. Where's the sophistry in that?

[rrneck]

153. Youll find it in the fact

that you admit that a firearm might be necessary but you ignore all the places where you DON'T think it's necessary.

If somebody could kick your door down at home he could much more easily mug you away from home.

That's why the claim that self defense with a firearm is OK at home but not on the street is incoherent.

[Starboard Tack]

154. I think it's more about probabilities.

You've said that you don't choose to carry. I assume your choice is based on probability.

[rrneck]

155. That's my risk assessment

created and applied by me.

Legislating one for an entire population is unjust.

Only arrogant ideologues propose such a thing and it takes tyranny to make it happen.

[Starboard Tack]

156. So, do you think that the UK laws are unjust?

And were they proposed by arrogant ideologues? I don't think you will find many Brits describing their government is tyrannical. I have many friends and family there and none of them oppose current gun legislation.

[rrneck]

157. Yes, I think they are unjust.

People dying because of a law that leaves them no remedy is the definition of unjust. How many people in the UK were stabbed because their assailant knew they would not be able to mount a defense?

How many tyrannical leaders rose to power on a wave of popular support? The internet's favorite whipping boy Adolf Hitler won a popular election. Stalin prevailed in a popular revolution. Mao and Pol Pot were both leaders in successful military overthrow of their respective governments that would have not been possible without popular support. They all have one thing in common: An ideology that disregards individual liberty in favor of a "societal plan" that depends on "percentages". That's how authoritarian rulers think. And they cannot prevail unless they can can convince enough authoritarian citizens to go along long enough for them to seize power. And then it's too late.

The UK is has more surveillance cameras per capita than any other country in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/334853.stm
Per capita there are more surveillance cameras in the UK than any other country in the world - more than a million according to one recent estimate.

The average city dweller can expect to be captured on film every five minutes. Almost 500,000 low budget CCTV kits have been bought in the last three years.

At this rate, by 2015 there will be no such thing as a secret place in our city centres, according to Simon Davies, of the pressure group Privacy International.

Yet opposition of this type seems to have been increasingly pushed to the margins. When CCTV began to gather pace at the beginning of the 1990s, hostility was common place. The principle objection was that it would ceaselessly erode civil liberties.

Guns are pretty much banned, and knives may be next:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm
Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

What's next? Spoons? Do you think countries fall to tyranny all at once? It's a process. A process that we all must resist. Some will be successful, some will not. Will the UK fall to oppression? Who knows. It depends on exigent circumstances. But the possibility is there. If you want to know where a culture is going ask an artist. Why do you think successful blockbuster movies like Children of Men and V for Vendetta were set in a dystopian UK?

The Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) is a way for the people to tell their government what to do. It is a progressive, liberal document because it gives people the freedom to use government to chart their own course and not rely on some ideologue with a powerful personality to chart it for them. Erode it at your own risk.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Surveillance cameras may not be nice, but they don't kill

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

_________________________

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006a). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Long-term trends. Available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Weapons used. Available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

Home Office (undated). ‘Homicide’ – long-term national recorded crime trends. Available from: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp.

[Starboard Tack]

168. I guess this is where we differ

You think the rights of the individual trump those of society and I think the opposite. Your view could potentially lead to anarchy and mine to tyranny. Hopefully, we are all smart enough to not let either happen. It's all about balance and moderation. When extremism rears it's ugly head we need to rethink. So, now we have these two societies, US and UK, using different methods to solve common problems. Only time will tell how effective each is and which may be preferable. Both are far from perfect, but on crime and violence, I think they are still doing a far better job.

[Straw Man]

161. Yes, they are unjust.

And were they proposed by arrogant ideologues?

Yes.

I don't think you will find many Brits describing their government is tyrannical.

Oh yes, I'm sure they're all tickled pink with the Thatcher-Lite policies of the last 15 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/27/project-midas-fingerprint-scanner-liberty
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-laid-bare-the-article-that-may-get-you-arrested-405951.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/06/immigrationpolicy.politics

I have many friends and family there and none of them oppose current gun legislation.

I would suggest that that's a function of the social circles that you move in.

[Starboard Tack]

166. You think this is only in the UK?

Thomas Smith, an officer from the Los Angeles police department, also briefed the Biometrics 2008 conference on the success of his force's mobile ID devices which send images and fingerprint matches back to officers on the street. He said they had become so powerful that once the machines were produced some suspects admitted they were lying about their identity.

"Our next thing will be facial recognition in the field," he said.

[Straw Man]

171. No, but it's more pervasive there...

...and the erosion of rights is more severe.

[rrneck]

104. You got facts

to refute the "supercilious condescension"?

[Starboard Tack]

149. Nope. Just personal observation

[rl6214]

120. holy 2a?

Picking up some of the shtick I see.

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

150. You got it. When in Rome...

I may be a slow learner but I am learning

[Euromutt]

129. Who's trying "to make excuses"?

The point being made here is that nothing Barber did (allegedly, but let's assume for the sake of the argument the OP is correct about what he did) is on the books as a felony. Under the Revised Code of Washington section 9.41.270 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270), displaying a "firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" is a gross misdemeanor, not a felony.

Under RCW 9.41.098(1)(d) (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.098), and 98.41.075 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.075), if found guilty, his CPL will be revoked and a court can order the forfeiture of both firearms he had on him. And assuming that Barber did everything the Yelm Online article says he did, I for one am fully in favor of the court doing so.

But while you can argue that what he (allegedly) did ought to be a felony, that doesn't make it a felony at the present time. The RCW says the alleged offenses are gross misdemeanors, and that's all there is to it.

[right2bfree]

164. More proof that we need to include the mental histories in issuing these permits to drunks, and

other people with mental issues and substance abuse problems.

[Simon Snath]

108. He absolutely should be charged

No excuses work. He absolutely should be charged with a felony.

[barbtries]

9. yup

nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

11. What's typical about it? nt

[DrDan]

more irresponsible behavior on the part of a gun owner with no consequences

[rrneck]

31. Why do you say there were no consequences? nt

[DrDan]

36. "Barber was not charged with a felony because he has a concealed weapons permit"

[rrneck]

45. So you wanted him charged

with a felony regardless of state law. What's the matter? Did you not get good service? You just can't get good help nowadays.

[jpak]

48. It's a stupid law - it assumes that CCW permit holders are more "law abiding" than the rest of us

And can be trusted not to get drunk and brandish guns in school parking lots - over a fucking parking space

Which they obviously ain't

Book 'em

yup

[rrneck]

46. So you wanted him charged

with a felony regardless of state law. What's the matter? Did you not get good service? You just can't get good help nowadays.

[DrDan]

47. being drunk, brandishing a weapon on school property.

YES. I want him charged of a felony. How about Reckless Endangerment. He put many at risk with his drunken behavior.

[rrneck]

51. Why should it be a felony? nt

[DrDan]

63. drunk with a gun on school property - you probably have a point

children - plenty more where they came from.

[rrneck]

76. I'll ask again

Why should it be a felony? Surely you have a reason.

[DrDan]

79. drunk on school grounds brandishing a weapon

[rrneck]

81. LOL!

Why should drunk on school grounds brandishing a weapon be considered a felony?

[oneshooter]

59. Sounds like you don't care to follow the law.

Vigilante Justice anyone?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[DrDan]

62. what a load . . .

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.050

[Straw Man]

71. A load?

YES. I want him charged of a felony. How about Reckless Endangerment.

Read your own cite. It's a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. The same goes for possession of a firearm on school grounds:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280

Note that there is an exemption for CCW permit holders if they are picking up or dropping off students.

Apparently, the reporter didn't do his homework. The man will lose his CCW, as he should, and be charged with several gross misdemeanors, as the law requires. Several posters in this thread would be happy to ignore the law in pursuit of their ideology.

[DrDan]

80. that's good for a year in jail - that is a start

[Euromutt]

130. Ever hear of "misdemeanors"?

By my reckoning, Barber could be looking at two gross misdemeanor charges (unlawful handling of a weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, and DUI), each of which is punishable with up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $5,000.

Just because Barber can't be charged with a felony doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

[DrDan]

20. more irresponsible behavior on the part of a gun owner with no consequences

[lawodevolution]

21. Even though the guy started the fight, it's possible the other guy became violent and irrational

and a flash of a gun will often shut down a potentially violent situation. Notice no one was hurt.

[jpak]

27. Advocating brandishing of concealed weapons is intimidation and a crime & you made my point

This why no permit & shall issue CCW is such a bad idea - folks that just want to intimidate everyone around them would have a free pass to brandish their supposed "concealed" weapon when they want to get their way

in a parking lot

in a school

everywhere

Oh Yeah - brandishing is *a crime* not *law abiding* behavior

it's criminal behavior

yup

[rrneck]

30. Yet another baseless accusation. nt

[lawodevolution]

33. If brandishing is illegal then more people will be shot

because brandishing is a way to avoid a crime. If you are forced to use the gun when you pull it out, you'd have to fire at the person even if they were going to flee or you would be brandishing.

I know you'd rather someone get shot so you can post it up and add it into your stats but im more interested in avoiding a violent crime with as little injury as possible.

[jpak]

39. horseshit - brandishing is a crime

and brandishers are fucking criminals

book 'em Danno

yup

[lawodevolution]

99. except for where brandishing to scare off an attacker is legal.

and no you can't book them if he/she didn't break a law. This isn't china, lybia or any other gun control paradise where the guy in charge who gets to use gun control to decide who owns the guns also gets to invent the law on the fly.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Brandishing is assault with a deadly weapon and a felony

[rrneck]

77. Missed again.

Research is really easy on the internet.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.


(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm,(Including flare guns) in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_misdemeanor
n American law, a gross misdemeanor is a crime which is more serious than a misdemeanor, but is still classified as a minor crime, as opposed to serious crimes. Such crimes may include petty theft, simple assault or driving under the influence. Typically, the maximum sentence is one year in county jail and/or $5,000 in fines.

On edit: I didn't see in the article whether or not the drunk guy was threatened. He might have had reason to brandish his weapon and if that is the case, then he didn't break any law other than being drunk while carrying.

[Starboard Tack]

105. Thank you. What would I do without you to keep me honest?

In Washington State it is a Gross Misdemeanor. My bad.
Good for him he wasn't in California

If you brandish a firearm in a threatening manner while in a vehicle, you could be facing felony charges and a potential sentence of 16 months to 3 years in prison.

Most other weapons offenses in the state of California are felonies. In particular, if you are found to be in commission of another crime and are also in possession of a firearm, your sentence will be exacerbated.

Your sentence in these felony weapons charges depends on several things including:

* What the weapon was
* How it was used
* Your criminal history
* If the weapon was concealed

A judge will take all of the specifics of your case into consideration when determining a sentence.

For example, felony assault with a deadly weapon carries a potential sentence of 2-4 years in prison. If that firearm is semi-automatic the sentence is increased to 3-6 years in prison. Where within the sentencing range the judge decides to sentence you depends on the circumstances of your offense and any criminal history.

[rrneck]

107. What's your point? nt

[Starboard Tack]

112. What's your point? I was responding to your excellent correction

No other point. Nothing too deep. Happy Easter btw

[rrneck]

113. Back atcha.

I plan to eat too much.

I think California gun laws make little sense. Which is why the whole debate interests me. Most of the gun control laws that seem so popular simply make no sense. And when we advocate laws that don't make sense, our political opponents bust us and get elected.

Have a good weekend.

[oneshooter]

61. " Brandishing" is not a crime in Texas

There are no "brandishing" laws in Texas.

So it depends on the local laws whether it is a crime or not.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[lawodevolution]

103. Jpak, delcared that anyone who brandishes for any reason should be charged with a felony

this kind of invent the law as you go mentality is typical in places like north korea, china, lybia, egypt but we don't do this here. In the USA there must be a law in order for you to be charged with a crime.

[jpak]

141. brandishing = threatening with a deadly weapon = felony -> terrorists go directly to jail

yup

[YllwFvr]

69. Brandishing is not a federal crime

Some states have it. For example, pa does not

[DrDan]

38. so this behavior is acceptable to you . . .

nothing to see here . . . just move along . . . .

[lawodevolution]

100. innocent until proven guilty. Now post a link and a quote that shows that the guy with the gun

was not responding to a potential thread by showing his gun. Until you do, innocent.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Bet you were a hall monitor

[Hoyt]

85. It's possible, but not likely. Too bad the innocent guy didn't make the drunk eat his gun.

[rrneck]

86. Assumes facts not in evidence.

But evidence of bigotry.

[Hoyt]

91. Yep, I'm bigoted against a drunk, toting 2 guns on school property, intimidating an innocent person.

You ought to be "bigoted" against them too, except he's a fellow gun worshiper.

[rrneck]

96. Assumes facts not in evidence

What makes you think the other person was innocent?

In case you haven't figured it out yet, bigotry is all about assuming facts not in evidence. It's self inflicted ignorance.

[Hoyt]

115. Because your boy was drunk, packing, an asshole, showing his ass and weapon. Read the account.

I guess that's acceptable behavior to you.

[rrneck]

122. Soooo,

another guy uses two spots. He was in or near the vehicle and aware that he had parked wrong and that the drunk guy's daughter was having difficulty. Most assholes that park like that do it for fear of a door ding. That is obnoxious behavior right there. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he yelled at the drunk guy's daughter for almost or actually dinging his precious car door, prompting an equally stupid response from the drunk. The fight escalated from there with the drunk exposing, but not actually pointing the gun at the idiot that wouldn't park right. It is entirely possible that the other guy threatened him. It is equally possible he did not. It is a near certainty that both were assholes. It takes two to tango most of the time but since you are so bigoted against anyone who carries a gun, you assume the other guy has to be blameless.

Was the drunk an idiot? Yes. Was he entirely blameless? The account doesn't say. Is he fucked? Yes. Is it acceptable behavior to me? No. Do you reflexively defend anybody that strokes your bigot response? Yes.

[Hoyt]

132. Might have happened that way. I'm betting drunk-two-guns was fault.

Then put the guy on trial. If the other guy did anything to hurt the girl, I'd say drunk-two-guns should have kicked his arse. But, the moment drunk-two-guns flashed his gun -- assuming that is all it was -- he should have been made to eat it.

I'm betting the drunk, with guns and a crappy attitude is at fault. Again, if the other guy did anything wrong toward the daughter, I might understand kicking his ass -- but, sorry, these gun toters can't think flashing cold steel is acceptable. I understand it's why many tote, and buy more guns than they could carry at once. But flashing it -- when drunk -- is a friggin example of gun toters gone bad.

[rrneck]

144. I think

Ill let that response stand as is. It speaks volumes about you.

[bahrbearian]

13. Yelm the town of weirdos, I wounder if he is a Ramthian too

http://www.ramtha.com/

[Logical]

14. A cop in Kansas city Kansas was drunk n a bar off duty and shot someone.....

Should we ban cops too?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

54. Who wishes someone was shot? This SOB did plenty wrong. And it is hardly worst on CCW.

[jpak]

58. Nope

yup

[struggle4progress]

25. Who can really blame the guy for carrying his gun there? It seems to be a dangerous place:

I guess it could be a coincidence, but I very recently saw a news story about some drunk asshole picking a fight over a parking space in that same lot

[lawodevolution]

35. When you carry, you try to carry everywhere

he was in his car with the gun, which in many states makes the 1000 foot law void. The vehicle is an extension of your private property.
If he had to remove the gun from the car before going to get his daughter, he'd be disarmed the whole time, not just at the school. The school may have been his last reason to carry it that day.

[Starboard Tack]

67. OMG how naked he would have felt,

not being able to pick his kid up from school unarmed. Gun toters aren't supposed to go anywhere without their guns, but they aren't junkies. Oh no! Time for a little therapy.

[lawodevolution]

98. "gun toters" sounds like a bigoted term

I'll repeat again, when you carry, you carry all the time (unless you can't by law) and to say he had the gun just because he was at the school ignores all the other places he would have been that day including on the way to and back from the school. I know bigots can't read very well but I hope you understand this time.

[Starboard Tack]

109. No I understood perfectly well the first time.

What is bigoted about "Gun toters"? Is it the word gun or toter that you don't like? Would you prefer "pistol packer"?
It may be insulting to call someone a bigot, but if you don't understand the word, then you're excused. I don't like toting guns> I think it is detrimental to the future of our society. I don't hate toters, I just think they are misguided.

[Hoyt]

116. I agree completely. Besides the serious stuff, I got a good laugh out of it too.

[rl6214]

158. Toters, packers (not the Green Bay Packers)

all veiled insults. Don't care, just look at the source.

[Starboard Tack]

169. You want censor ordinary words now? Sorry, 1A trumps 2A

Definition of TOTE
transitive verb
1
: to carry by hand : bear on the person : lug, pack
2
: haul, convey
— tot·er \ˈtō-tər\ noun
Origin of TOTE
probably from an English-based creole; akin to Gullah & Krio tot to carry, of Bantu origin; akin to Kikongo -tota to pick up, Kimbundu -tuta to carry
First Known Use: 1677

Would your sensibilities be more comfortable with "Lethal Weapon Conveyor"?

[Simon Snath]

111. Not all CCW Permitees carry all the time

I would have to disagree with your subject line. Not all CCW Permitees carry all the time. Fanatics, perhaps. I know many Permitees who seldom carry. Only when they must travel to very unsavory or outright risky urban areas do they carry. We have lots of "risky areas" in Southern California and if I had the right to carry, in some of the areas like East L.A., or South Central, I would carry.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Look what you missed.

From the same article:

Stancil said authorities will embark on the process of having Barber’s concealed weapons permit revoked.

Since there are over 8 million permit holders, there will be a few who do bad things. But they are very few. You seek to broadbrush paint all CCW holders with the guilt of those few.

[Hoyt]

52. Trying to keep count of all law-abiding gun toters doing crud like this -- but becoming epidemic.

It is humorous to read the pro-gunners talking about how this doesn't happen -- but obviously it does.

The more folks that begin carrying, the worse it will get too as we dip into more and more demented permit applicants.

I'm shocked they didn't charge the guy with a felony. Law Enforcement needs to rethink that.

Finally, the SOB had two guns concealed. WTF, is his problem?

[aikoaiko]

55. is your head exploding?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. The Anslinger-Wertheim school of gun control relies heavily on strawmen arguments.

"It is humorous to read the pro-gunners talking about how this doesn't happen" O rly?

You seem to have confused the DU Guns forum for somewhere else, as I don't recall that and I've been here a while.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Many toters have guns for every mood and every occasion

not to mention the wardrobe changes. You wouldn't want to ruin a fashion statement with a bulge in the wrong place.

[Straw Man]

82. How does one accessorize a flare gun?

Or are you just glad to see me?

[rrneck]

84. With hyperbole and sophistry. nt

[Starboard Tack]

110. With a lot of flare, honey

[Katya Mullethov]

172. CAR stock , over and under rail , holographic red dot scope

A flash suppressor is a given .

[rrneck]

78. You're going to ruin that string of pearls if you don't let up.

It is humorous to read the pro-gunners talking about how this doesn't happen -- but obviously it does.

Who said it didn't happen?

I'm shocked they didn't charge the guy with a felony.

What would make it a felony?

[Hoyt]

87. Toting two guns on school ground, drunk (driving), disorderly conduct, felony reckless conduct.

Or something similar, depending on the laws in the locality. I'm sure there are plenty of other charges that could be levied. His permit should be revoked, and the judge should remind the jerk that if he is caught with a gun in public, he'll spend more time in jail -- where he belongs.

My bet is he will continue to carry after his permit is revoked because it is likely he can't function without a gun.

[oneshooter]

93. Again with the vigilantism. n/t

[rrneck]

94. No answer yet.

Toting two guns on school ground

If he had a CCW the number of guns is irrelevant as far as I know.

drunk (driving)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502
(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

Is not a felony. Why not?

disorderly conduct,

Again, not a felony.

felony reckless conduct

Whatever the fuck that means. Was he charged with that, or is that just your opinion dictates.

I'll ask you again. What would make his conduct a felony?

[Hoyt]

139. Jeeez, who cares whether it is a felony, gross felony or he's just a gun carrying jerk?

It's bad anyway you look at it. And, it's more common than many of you will admit.

Hope you've enjoyed all your "legal" research that doesn't mean chit in the end. He's still the type jerk that should never have been issued a permit.

But, defend him if you like.

[oneshooter]

142. Sounds like sour grapes to me. n/t

[rrneck]

143. Selective response.

See post 122.

Who cares? You don't. Due process, civil rights, justice, and reality all get sacrificed at the alter of consumer demand. You want what you want and when your demands for quality customer service aren't met you throw a hussy fit. We all just exist to fill the gaps in your consumercentric ideology.

Pathetic.

[Straw Man]

83. Did you read the cites to Washington state law?

I'm shocked they didn't charge the guy with a felony. Law Enforcement needs to rethink that.

A felony charge would not be supported by any of the relevant statutes. Law enforcement tends to abide by those pesky little things called laws. At least we should hope they do.

[Hoyt]

90. I'm sure LE or DA could come up with a list of charges that would take this toter off the streets.

[Straw Man]

97. Not felonies, though, unless they falsified evidence.

Would that be OK with you if it " this toter off the streets"?

[Hoyt]

134. Wouldn't falsify evidence. But wouldn't forget, we are talking of drunk with two guns and attitude.

Is that what you want on the streets -- common criminal if you ask me? Exactly what you carriers fear, . . . . . .well, supposedly.

[Katya Mullethov]

165. I would suggest institutional perjury as a strategy

They are always asking to borrow our " tools ", but perjury is one very effective tool that the federal boys wont loan us .
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1680&bih=882&q=institutional+perjury&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
Think how much could be accomplished !

[rrneck]

102. You're sure the "authorities"

will come up with something that would satisfy your understanding of how the world ought to be.

How very.... authoritarian.

[Hoyt]

133. Nope. Need to throw the book at em. Teach some of you carriers a lesson.

[Straw Man]

136. I don't need any lessons, thank you.

I don't get drunk, and I don't get in fights over parking spaces. "You carriers"? Keep your bullshit aspersions to yourself.

[Hoyt]

137. Well, you are one of few. Too many of these guys are defending drunk carrying two concealed weapons.

And, on school property. That's why most gunners should leave em at home.

[rl6214]

159. "Well, you are one of few."

That's bullshit and you know it. You have seen all the stats and you know that concealed weapon carriers are FAR less likely to commit a crime than the average person but your aren't about to admit that, being as full of shit as you are.

[rrneck]

145. Yet another

authoritarian weighs in. Self awareness isn't your strong suit is it?

[oneshooter]

114. Again with the vigilante talk. n/t

[Logical]

123. Wow, what great logic that is. Keeping track of the bad cops also? n-t

[right2bfree]

163. Fuuny, but if I hit this drunk gunner with a sap, it would be a felony. Go figure! nt

[krispos42]

74. Wow, you found one.

:applause:


I'll give you (or a DUer you name) a donor star if you can find one incident a day for a week of a CCW holder doing something dumbass like this.

[jpak]

75. I'll do my best!

:hi:

[krispos42]

131. I'm sure you will. Besides, win or lose, it's for a good cause.

:-)

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[right2bfree]

119. Typical right wing gun owner. Drunk with lots of guns, nt

[rrneck]

125. What makes you think he was a conservative? nt

[Hoyt]

138. You're right. He might be a liberal drunk, with two guns and a bad attitude.

Somehow, I doubt it, but who knows.

[rl6214]

160. Bullshit

prove how "typical" this is.

[PavePusher]

170. Your bigotry....

it sucks.

[Atypical Liberal]

140. Very rare occurrence.

yet another "law abiding" "responsible" CCW permit holder - and the GOP/NRA wants MORE people to carry

You say "yet another" as if this is a common occurrence. It is not.

As you very well know, the crime rates for CCW permit holders have been posted many times. In Texas, they have data covering arrests for everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide. And , as you very well know, CCW permit holders account for only about .026% of convictions. CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm related crime, than people without CCW permits.

Using examples like this to advocate for gun control is like using 9/11 to advocate for the "War on Terror".