OT - WAC ND at Puyallup today

[Vitaeus]

Probably about the same number of those that post their negative comments here withput any attempt to make a change. As it has been said M A N Y times if you don't like it, don't go. OR do go, get into office and make the changes you would like to see. If you are not willing to do that then shut the f*(@k up.

I celebrate your First Amendment right to say things that offend me. I also would like to point out that I and others can comment on hypocritical stances and choose to not provide financial or verbal support for businesses that choose to limit our ability to provide for self-defense.

 

[waterfowl woody]

The one thing that did work here is The Gun Safety Rules, has to violate all 3 to have injured someone.
1. All Guns Are Loaded (violated)
2. Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger (violated)
3. Keep It Pointed In A Safe Direction (mastered)

I doubt he has mastered number three. Need to change that to lucky.


As to the Open carry people that defend WAC you must be profiting from them or you would also never support WAC.

Also WAC members on here get nasty when OC members stand up to this so called gun right non profit organization called WAC.

Its sad how money will blind the hard core from the reality of things. Does your table make enough to have your beliefs taken? How about your rights?
It would be nice if this non profit would do what they say. Teach the public and most of all show the public the right way. as of now they are walking the same line as the anti's, rules to disarm because its SAFE. After following these rules for a few years and people will forget that OC was once legal, wait isn't that why we are on this forum?

 

[ManInBlack]

Probably about the same number of those that post their negative comments here withput any attempt to make a change. As it has been said M A N Y times if you don't like it, don't go. OR do go, get into office and make the changes you would like to see. If you are not willing to do that then shut the f*(@k up.

Wow, the truth hurts, huh?

 

[gogodawgs]

I doubt he has mastered number three. Need to change that to lucky.


As to the Open carry people that defend WAC you must be profiting from them or you would also never support WAC.

Also WAC members on here get nasty when OC members stand up to this so called gun right non profit organization called WAC.

Its sad how money will blind the hard core from the reality of things. Does your table make enough to have your beliefs taken? How about your rights?
It would be nice if this non profit would do what they say. Teach the public and most of all show the public the right way. as of now they are walking the same line as the anti's, rules to disarm because its SAFE. After following these rules for a few years and people will forget that OC was once legal, wait isn't that why we are on this forum?

Well, I don't profit from them and I still am a member and support WAC. They are one of many avenues to get our message out to gun owners. If we don't go to the sinners where shall we go? What is wrong with profit anyways? What is wrong with money anyways?

I have worked the OC table at the WAC shows for the last 3 years. I have donated the table fee from my own pocket. We sell nothing at the table. I argue with members every month that think those of us on this board are wrong and crazy. I have been called names. But I keep going to enlighten them and we enlighten more than we disappoint every month. Kudos to Deros, M1gunr, TriggerDr and many others who continue to spread the message of our rights among adversity. We take our shots from members of WAC, from non-members of WAC and from OCDO forum members. Bring it!


edited to add: The bus driver's don't support our cause, I guess I'll just ride on the back of the bus and complain.....

 

[ManInBlack]

edited to add: The bus driver's don't support our cause, I guess I'll just ride on the back of the bus and complain.....

...or start our own bus system...

 

[gogodawgs]

...or start our own bus system...

And a couple of years ago, when myself and a few others suggested this...the remainder of this board shot it down.

But in reality the reference is to Rosa Parks, I will stand where it is not comfortable and keep working on multiple fronts to achieve my goals. I know and interact with several board members of the WAC and they are sympathetic to the notion of carry at the show. Then there is the reality of incidents like this that concern many people when played out in a big room with 5000 plus handling firearms all at once.

 

[waterfowl woody]

Well, I don't profit from them and I still am a member and support WAC. They are one of many avenues to get our message out to gun owners. If we don't go to the sinners where shall we go? What is wrong with profit anyways? What is wrong with money anyways?

I have worked the OC table at the WAC shows for the last 3 years. I have donated the table fee from my own pocket. We sell nothing at the table. I argue with members every month that think those of us on this board are wrong and crazy. I have been called names. But I keep going to enlighten them and we enlighten more than we disappoint every month. Kudos to Deros, M1gunr, TriggerDr and many others who continue to spread the message of our rights among adversity. We take our shots from members of WAC, from non-members of WAC and from OCDO forum members. Bring it!


edited to add: The bus driver's don't support our cause, I guess I'll just ride on the back of the bus and complain.....

There is nothing wrong with profits especially when ones morals and beliefs are followed.
As you being Rosa Parks at the gun show, going behind enemy lines, being stripped of your open carry rights to show others open carry is legal. far fetched, but in the same I commend you for your time and patients. seriously


I still believe WAC needs to follow our rights. If people visiting there shows are unsafe WAC needs to step up and provide every visitor with education on keeping guns holstered. If anyone violates the law like the ID instuctor they need to be charged, as any criminal would, and that is education to everyone.

 

[ManInBlack]

I still believe WAC needs to follow our rights. If people visiting there shows are unsafe WAC needs to step up and provide every visitor with education on keeping guns holstered. If anyone violates the law like the ID instuctor they need to be charged, as any criminal would, and that is education to everyone.

Let's be clear: we have no rights at WAC events, at locations under their control (unless, I would argue, those locations are government-owned buildings, but that's another debate). They can make whatever stupid rules they want. I will respect their stupid rules by not patronizing their shows and not giving them any support whatsoever. I prefer to be an intelligent person and take responsibility for my own safety.

As far as the idiot getting charged; I could care less. He didn't injure any persons or property, so I'm not convinced that a real crime was committed, other than possibly violating a rule that 50%+1 a-holes in a room raised their hands to enact.

I maintain that WAC's stupid rules actually make their shows more dangerous, because it gives idiots a false sense of security, believing that any gun they come across is guaranteed unloaded. Besides, concealed carriers will do what they want, so the only people who are forcibly disarmed are the legal open carriers.

 

[NavyMike]

City ordinance

And if the city has an ordinance on prohibition on discharge of guns in the city limits then there would be another issue.

Seattle City Code 12A.14.071

"A person is guilty of discharge of a firearm if he or she willfully discharges a firearm in a place where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals or property will be jeopardized."

What is interesting is that the word 'willfully' was added in a legislative amendment in 1998.

I wonder if their deliberate intent was to exclude a negligent discharge from prosecution under this ordinance.

 

[NavyMike]

I would argue that "willful" would include any action taken by the operator of the firearm to pull the trigger fully to the rear thus causing the firearm to function normally and discharge. PERIOD. An "unwilling" discharge would be something like a slam fire - a true hardware malfunction, or something like in the process of holstering a gun the trigger catches on something, other than the person's finger, causing the gun to discharge. I'm sorry....the idiot's finger was "willfully" inside the trigger guard.

I would agree that he was willfully negligent. However, that may not be enough to show willfull intent to discharge a firearm in violation of the code as it is written.

 

[massivedesign]

Does Puyallup follow Seattle Code?

 

[NavyMike]

Does Puyallup follow Seattle Code?

Now I feel really stupid. Despite reading the whole thread, I got it in my head that it happened in Seattle. Doh! Sorry for the confusion.

Puyallup adopted the state RCWs for firearms, so rcw 9.41.230 would apply.

That also uses the term 'willfully discharges'.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Well, I don't profit from them and I still am a member and support WAC. They are one of many avenues to get our message out to gun owners. If we don't go to the sinners where shall we go? What is wrong with profit anyways? What is wrong with money anyways?

I have worked the OC table at the WAC shows for the last 3 years. I have donated the table fee from my own pocket. We sell nothing at the table. I argue with members every month that think those of us on this board are wrong and crazy. I have been called names. But I keep going to enlighten them and we enlighten more than we disappoint every month. Kudos to Deros, M1gunr, TriggerDr and many others who continue to spread the message of our rights among adversity. We take our shots from members of WAC, from non-members of WAC and from OCDO forum members. Bring it!


edited to add: The bus driver's don't support our cause, I guess I'll just ride on the back of the bus and complain.....

Rosa Parks wasn't riding a private bus system. Might wanna find a better analogy, she was fighting the state and jim crow laws.

But if you wanna stick to the Rosa Park analogy that would mean you would support us going to WAC and deliberately breaking their rules........?

I applaud those of you who go to WAC for OC, that is your choice. I don't applaud the demeaning of those who want to voice their protest of WAC policies. Buy not being members, by not going, and by not shutting up others are doing something too. Just as it's been pointed out many times before how some will personally ban other private businesses that don't support our right to OC.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And a couple of years ago, when myself and a few others suggested this...the remainder of this board shot it down.

But in reality the reference is to Rosa Parks, I will stand where it is not comfortable and keep working on multiple fronts to achieve my goals. I know and interact with several board members of the WAC and they are sympathetic to the notion of carry at the show. Then there is the reality of incidents like this that concern many people when played out in a big room with 5000 plus handling firearms all at once.

It wasn't the remainder of the board, it was the majority of the board.

I waffled on the idea for a bit and decided against it. For many of the same reasons we see in other gun right organizations, they will pick and choose who to represent, popularity will become a factor over necessity, power trips will come into play, and I think we make a way bigger statement as a disorganized group of people who stand up for a cause than one headed by a few people.

 

[gogodawgs]

Rosa Parks wasn't riding a private bus system. Might wanna find a better analogy, she was fighting the state and jim crow laws.

But if you wanna stick to the Rosa Park analogy that would mean you would support us going to WAC and deliberately breaking their rules........?

I applaud those of you who go to WAC for OC, that is your choice. I don't applaud the demeaning of those who want to voice their protest of WAC policies. Buy not being members, by not going, and by not shutting up others are doing something too. Just as it's been pointed out many times before how some will personally ban other private businesses that don't support our right to OC.

Parks stood up to a system in place. She demonstrated courage and among scorn from society. That is the analogy I was using.

You can break any rules you want. I will continue to do it the right way.

I have never demeaned anyone (I understand others have), but I have been called names for defending OC at the WAC shows. Furthermore, I have not personally banned other private businesses that don't support OC.

 

[ManInBlack]

You can break any rules you want. I will continue to do it the right way.

So...not the way Rosa Parks did it, apparently...

 

[gogodawgs]

It wasn't the remainder of the board, it was the majority of the board.

I waffled on the idea for a bit and decided against it. For many of the same reasons we see in other gun right organizations, they will pick and choose who to represent, popularity will become a factor over necessity, power trips will come into play, and I think we make a way bigger statement as a disorganized group of people who stand up for a cause than one headed by a few people.

Actually, the poll that was taken was not a majority. It was a significant minority, 78% in favor and 21% against.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...the-establishment-of-a-Washington-State-group

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Actually, the poll that was taken was not a majority. It was a significant minority, 78% in favor and 21% against.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...the-establishment-of-a-Washington-State-group

Interesting, I see some changed the position reading through the thread. I missed the vote part for some reason my mistake. If it was only a small amount against it why didn't you start it?

Deros had some very good points in that thread.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Parks stood up to a system in place. She demonstrated courage and among scorn from society. That is the analogy I was using.

You can break any rules you want. I will continue to do it the right way.

I have never demeaned anyone (I understand others have), but I have been called names for defending OC at the WAC shows. Furthermore, I have not personally banned other private businesses that don't support OC.

Rosa Parks is a hero of mine, specifically because she took the individual initiative to break a law that unnaturally required that she admit she was inferior to people who had a different color of skin than she did.

Obeying the rules of a private organization and maybe lobbying others there isn't the same as the courage she demonstrated. In Rosa Parks era there were others already lobbying against Jim Crow laws and bigotry, she actively and physically demonstrated her stance against it.

So she didn't do it the "right way". She broke the rules/law. I am not advocating breaking the rules etc, of WAC I simply won't give them my business (they are private and have the right to set their rules), I'll go to the mall that bans weapons over WAC .

Yet some of you are breaking the rules by concealing while there.


Now I am not saying you are not working toward changing WAC's rules, and it would be encouraging to see some evidence of letters you wrote, attending board members and taking a stance against it etc.

"ignorant comment" is demeaning, instead of asking why techno felt the way he did and discussing it like rational people.

 

[SpyderTattoo]

That was clearly an opinion of mine and not demeaning. What I said was, "That was the most idiotic commett I've ever heard on these boards". The demeaning comments have been towards me, not from me.