• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Duty to Inform?

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
I think this thread has taken an interesting turn - and isn't necessarily off topic. It begs the question: what does liberty/freedom mean to us and what did it mean to those who took part in the revolution?

To me, part of being free is being able to exchange ideas, commodities, or information voluntarily and without fear of reprisal. Here in Washington, we have no obligation or mandate to inform a police officer that we are armed if we are stopped for cause. In that sense we are "free" to volunteer or withhold that information. I will not harp on someone for choosing to reveal that they are armed, nor will I harp on someone who chooses not to. Me personally - I choose not to volunteer unless I am being asked directly and I also choose not to be an @$$. If I have that big a problem with an officers actions, I would file a complaint or initiate a lawsuit. If an officer chooses to be a buffoon, he has the clout of his badge to back him up. I will not risk my safety by getting into a verbal tussle with a cop.

I think freedom is not a top-down concept. That means the rights we have are the rights we are given. Freedom is only maintained if the people who are being governed want to be free. Freedom is not meddling in someone else's affairs because you think the person has too much money, are uncomfortable with their choices, or doing something you otherwise think shouldn't be done. I have noticed that people are quick to claim freedom for themselves, but are just as quick to deny it to someone else. Freedom is not taking what doesn't belong to you. That said, should we be free to trash the environment by dumping toxic waste because it saves a few bucks? Should we be free to shout fire in a crowded building when none exists? I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with setting standards - in the aforementioned cases, you are still mandating someone to not do something. I think we would agree that these rules would be sensible because violating them harms someone else. But when do rules intended to keep others from harm become too much - like fining a kid for their neighborhood lemonade stand because they aren't a vetted and licensed business? The constant battle is where do we draw the line.
 

Perkins

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
20
Location
Washington
It appears that you schooling interfered with you education. What a load of crap. Yelling fire in a movie theater must not be unlawful. If yelling fire injures another where no fire exists then the injured citizen needs to prove harm and seek a redress. The proper role of government is to mediate not mandate. <snip> Anyway, informing a cop you are packing is asking for trouble.....don't talk to cops.


I think you need to re-read what I said, more carefully. I never implied that yelling fire in a theatre should be unlawful. There are people who argue that the general populace should be denied access to firearms in order to prevent their potential missuse. One example they try to use to make their point (that there should be limits on liberty) is the movie theatre. They claim that the liability one incurs by yelling 'fire' in a crowded room with limited exits when there is no fire is essentially the same as limiting liberty with respect to firearms. They are wrong. Taking firearms to prevent their potential missuse would be analogous to gagging people as they enter the theatre to prevent the potential missuse of their voices. That is a limit on liberty, and when you look at a case like theatres, it is obviously absurd. However, you are not free to yell fire in a theatre. If you do so, you will be liable for damages resulting directly from your action. You may even be held liable for an attempt to cause harm if there is evidence that you yelled fire specifically to cause damage to the theatre or its occupants. (What sort of evidence? Maybe a video recording of you (on youtube) saying you were hoping to get someone trampled by your actions.) Continuing to apply the analogy to firearms, this is the same as saying that you are at liberty to use your firearm out in a crowd in public; but, if you do so without justification (or, especially, with the intent to cause harm to the innocent), you will be held liable for the damage you cause.

svg: I'm not familiar enough with Bastiat enough to say, but I will add it to my list to investigate. As for the Spanish monks, all of the ones I have encountered wrote their major works in Latin. It is true that liberty comes from latin; however, English is an odd mix of germanic, celtic, and latin words and grammar. Free is germanic, and seems to have meant friend, or beloved, or to love. I don't have a particularly complete timeline for their meanings, but many words' meanings shifted some time after the Norman invasion of England. The nobles and commoners did not share a language (the commoners spoke Saxon, the Normans spoke French), which led to a mixing of the two in order to form something akin to present English. In the process, many words with similar meanings shifted slightly, rather than one being dropped. This allowed English to have a high degree of specificity, lacking in both parent languages. For example, vale and valley both originate in the Latin vallis, one by way of the French valee, the other from the French val. Vale is a region between two or more ranges of mountains, valley is between specifically two mountains or a mountain and a ridge ('though now it is used when vale is meant). Similarly, liberty and freedom adjusted their meanings so that they allowed for nuance not easilly possible in a language lacking one or the other. I do think it is possible that old Spanish or old French had some common way for denoting the difference, but so far I have failed in my attempts to figure it out. I can tell you that libre (and the noun form libertad) today means freedom; 'though they are used for liberty when translating from English, since there is no other word to use.

mariner, I think you hit the nail on the head about freedom being centered on the exchange of ideas and what not. In the few spots you find freedom mentioned by the founding generation, it is often in reference to freedom of conscience and the like. I think they were trying to protect freedom of information exchange when promising the freedom of the press and of speech. Of course freedom of contract is also good, and covers the free exchange of commodities. It is the 'without fear of reprisal' which makes it freedom instead of simply liberty. Unfortunately, like with many other words, the modern education system blurs (I believe intentionally) the meanings of these words. (Republic vs democracy, terrorist, marriage, et cetera) As for your point about the environment, you can thank uncle sam for that one. It used to be (by common law) that factories and what not were held liable to those who own the part of the environment they damaged. If you have a factory producing copious amounts of smoke, and it coats someone's house (or laundry), the individual could get an injunction and a hearing in court to determine if the factory really was what damaged them. If so, the factory would be required to pay damages and could only resume operations when the problem was solved. As a result, new technologies were developed to reduce the pollution released. Of course, these costs hit the factories, which slowed their development. Well, in the 1890s, the federal courts decided that a factory polluting your land was not a valid reason for you to sue the factory, because the good the factory provided to society was more important than the harm caused to you. Of course this led to massive smog problems, prompting further government intervention in the form of minimum height requirements on factory chimneys, which kept the cities from having the smog problems, but did not solve the problem in general. To fix the problem, simply let private parties seek damages against companies that contaminate their property. People talk about the 'environment' as though there is this great body of unowned or community owned property which is subject to the tragedy of the commons. In general, this isn't, or shouldn't be true. My property isn't bordered by 'the environment', it's bordered by my neighbours property. If I dump waste, I'm contaminating *his* property, not some abstract idea. If he and I don't care about the contamination, and it goes no farther than our properties, it isn't anyone else's business. On the other hand, if he cares, or if someone farther downwind cares, then they ought to have the right to seek redress.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I think this thread has taken an interesting turn - and isn't necessarily off topic. It begs the question: what does liberty/freedom mean to us and what did it mean to those who took part in the revolution?

To me, part of being free is being able to exchange ideas, commodities, or information voluntarily and without fear of reprisal. Here in Washington, we have no obligation or mandate to inform a police officer that we are armed if we are stopped for cause. In that sense we are "free" to volunteer or withhold that information. I will not harp on someone for choosing to reveal that they are armed, nor will I harp on someone who chooses not to. Me personally - I choose not to volunteer unless I am being asked directly and I also choose not to be an @$$. If I have that big a problem with an officers actions, I would file a complaint or initiate a lawsuit. If an officer chooses to be a buffoon, he has the clout of his badge to back him up. I will not risk my safety by getting into a verbal tussle with a cop.

I think freedom is not a top-down concept. That means the rights we have are the rights we are given. Freedom is only maintained if the people who are being governed want to be free. Freedom is not meddling in someone else's affairs because you think the person has too much money, are uncomfortable with their choices, or doing something you otherwise think shouldn't be done. I have noticed that people are quick to claim freedom for themselves, but are just as quick to deny it to someone else. Freedom is not taking what doesn't belong to you. That said, should we be free to trash the environment by dumping toxic waste because it saves a few bucks? Should we be free to shout fire in a crowded building when none exists? I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with setting standards - in the aforementioned cases, you are still mandating someone to not do something. I think we would agree that these rules would be sensible because violating them harms someone else. But when do rules intended to keep others from harm become too much - like fining a kid for their neighborhood lemonade stand because they aren't a vetted and licensed business? The constant battle is where do we draw the line.

+1
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
Perkins: my point was about the line of whether a rule imposed by society is an actual infringement on someone's freedom or not and how far such rules ought to go. I absolutely believe that a mechanism should be in place for a person to seek redress if they believe that their freedom has been violated. However the ability for redress ought to be restrained because people often play fast and loose with lawsuits. There is the constant struggle in determining when a rule protects an individual or society by giving them a means of redress or simply gets in the way. There is also the concept of voluntary contract as well.

For example, in Ocean Shores you can drive on the beach whereas in Westport, a few miles away on the other side of the harbor you cannot. The argument is made that the beaches at OS are dirty, overcrowded, and people trash and abuse the place to the chagrin of those who live and work there. In Westport, driving on the beaches is forbidden and therefore the ocean there is much cleaner. Should the rule at OS be in place at all? Or should the locals have the right to decide what behaviors and practices are acceptable to them and therefore accept the risk associated with giving people the freedom to do what they want on the beach. Maybe the beaches at Westport are nicer because of the rule and maybe the beaches at OS are more fun because there is more freedom, does that matter?

Another example are the standards we set in our own homes. As a condition of entry, I ask people not to drink alcohol if they are armed. I know a few may not like that, but to me I believe I am mitigating risk by not mixing alcohol with guns. People are free to leave or not show up, but as a condition of entry, that rule ought to be followed. Am I restricting someone's freedom by setting conditions? Who's freedom is more important? A guest has the opportunity to seek redress by talking to me about it, but their being in my home is their choice. Regardless, people want to follow their own rules despite my conditions - and they claim it is me violating their freedom.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think you need to re-read what I said, more carefully. I never implied that yelling fire in a theatre should be unlawful. There are people who argue that the general populace should be denied access to firearms in order to prevent their potential missuse. One example they try to use to make their point (that there should be limits on liberty) is the movie theatre. They claim that the liability one incurs by yelling 'fire' in a crowded room with limited exits when there is no fire is essentially the same as limiting liberty with respect to firearms. They are wrong. Taking firearms to prevent their potential missuse would be analogous to gagging people as they enter the theatre to prevent the potential missuse of their voices. That is a limit on liberty, and when you look at a case like theatres, it is obviously absurd. However, you are not free to yell fire in a theatre. If you do so, you will be liable for damages resulting directly from your action. You may even be held liable for an attempt to cause harm if there is evidence that you yelled fire specifically to cause damage to the theatre or its occupants. (What sort of evidence? Maybe a video recording of you (on youtube) saying you were hoping to get someone trampled by your actions.) Continuing to apply the analogy to firearms, this is the same as saying that you are at liberty to use your firearm out in a crowd in public; but, if you do so without justification (or, especially, with the intent to cause harm to the innocent), you will be held liable for the damage you cause. <snip>
The presumption is that the act (yelling fire, shooting a gun) will cause harm when there is no way to know that the act will in fact cause harm. No harm, no foul.

Freedom is different than liberty in some degree.....load of crap.

Freedom and liberty are interchangeable. Slicing and dicing the two to support a premise. :rolleyes:
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
I'm starting to think the prudent thing is to not carry your firearm on your person while driving. In a quick access container, you are not 'armed' and have no need to inform or discuss and you won't suffer being disarmed and/or swept with your own handgun.
In Washington, one must nevertheless have a CPL to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle. If your pistol is loaded, you are "armed" within the meaning of the law, irrespective of whether it is on your physical person.

Personally I would simply truthfully answer if I were carrying,

Legally speaking, I really can't think of any way they can legally compel you to tell them..... Since possession of a state license to do something isn't RAS of a crime,,,,,,

However, if the officer was willing to be easy on you and give you a warning for the traffic offense they stopped you for, I can certainly see talking yourself into a ticket..... It may not be right, but that's what could happen...
A fair reading of the statutes imply that LEO may, under the strict language of RCW 9.41.050(1)(b) and (2)(a), ask you to present your CPL even if they do not see that you are carrying a loaded pistol in your vehicle. My comments are not to be confused with whether you must inform LEO that you are armed (I submit that you have no such duty to inform unless the stop is related to a firearm issue). It is a thin distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

No more duty to inform a guy with a shiny badge and a state issued costume than any other nosy busy body.
Subject to my comments, above, +1

Its not just a conversation is it EriK?

Some people realize that perhaps millions have died and sacrificed over the last thousand years to win these rights. They don't take that lightly.

And yes it does turn to a tryannical state if people cooperate with the unliberty anti right demands of state agents. Germans thought they were free, much like you do.
+1

Some folks have primal need to placate a cop.

Cop: Excuse me sir, are you armed?
Me: ...
Me: Yes! I have a left one and I have a right one!

Yes you do, I'm what's called a "sleeper" you'll be rounded up in the FEMA camps in week one if the government ever becomes what you fear.......... Because I haven't made strong anti government rantings i won't even by on the no knock raid lists when martial law is declared.... Don't burn the bridge today mr. Sparky.

<snip>
Stop fooling yourself.

Goodwin was an idiot and people who invoke his so called law are trying to stifle others pointing out how history repeats itself.

We know liberty terrifies you, that is terrifying.
No, Mike Godwin is not an idiot. Godwin's Law (which is now an entry in the Third Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" is accurate. I personally know Mike, and he is not an idiot.

No, your perception of liberty terrifies me, liberty is great. I like liberty just fine....
<snip>
No, Erik. Really. You don't.

It appears that you[r] schooling interfered with you education. What a load of crap. Yelling fire in a movie theater must not be unlawful. If yelling fire injures another where no fire exists then the injured citizen needs to prove harm and seek a redress. The proper role of government is to mediate not mandate. <snip> Anyway, informing a cop you are packing is asking for trouble.....don't talk to cops.
Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is absolutely proper when there is, indeed, a fire in the theater. Yelling "fire" in a theater when there is not a fire is nothing less than terroristic.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is absolutely proper when there is, indeed, a fire in the theater. Yelling "fire" in a theater when there is not a fire is nothing less than terroristic.
OK, if nobody is harmed, what is the harm? other than you don't like it.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
I have a really really simple solution to this - don't get pulled over! I've only been stopped once and that was before I started carrying. However, since I have Springfield armory and "I love guns and coffee" decals on my truck, I think an officer would think the answer is obvious. I wouldn't lie if I was asked.

I'd say that's a simplistic and naive answer.
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
I'd say that's a simplistic and naive answer.

simple? Yes; I even said so. But how is it naive? I've only been pulled over once and I've been driving for 10 years. Are you saying that regardless of how I behave that I WILL run into a LEO? I know what I would do if I was pulled over, but I do everything in my power to not warrant getting stopped by them in the first place.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
No, Mike Godwin is not an idiot. Godwin's Law (which is now an entry in the Third Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" is accurate. I personally know Mike, and he is not an idiot.

I stand corrected, my apologies to Mr. Goodwin.

What I really meant to convey is that people who invoke his law to silence discussion of the repeat of a not so long ago history are idiots.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
In Washington, one must nevertheless have a CPL to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle.

Accurately, you must have a CPL legally to "carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle"[SUP]1[/SUP]. Obviously, that also means you have to have a CPL legally to "carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle"†.

† Anyone want to find out what happens if you drive around without a CPL in a vehicle with locked doors containing a concealed, loaded pistol not on your person placed in the car by someone with a CPL who is not in the car?

1. RCW 9.41.050
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Anyone want to find out what happens if you drive around without a CPL in a vehicle with locked doors containing a concealed, loaded pistol not on your person placed in the car by someone with a CPL who is not in the car?

1. RCW 9.41.050

Nothing, unless your car gets searched by LE. I can only surmise that you'd be arrested if so. Notwithstanding 9.41.060, which LE probably doesn't care about.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Placing a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a CPL. Ain't that hard to figure out. Do you honestly think the officer on the side of the road should believe you just because you tell him that Joe Schmoe who has a CPL actually placed and left the gun there? You might have an affirmative defense if Joe Schmoe shows up as a witness at your trial and says under oath that he placed the gun.
Yes, he absolutely should believe you. He has precisely zero reason not to. Whether he would is a separate question entirely.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Right. Because nobody ever lies to cops..... So, should they just believe you when you hand them your driver's license that it is still valid, or that your license plates belong to the vehicle they are on, or when you tell them you have no arrest warrants. Wow, that would save a ton of resources if they would just believe everybody and not check on anything.
Yes, it would, because the vast majority of those claims are true. But, cops don't believe anybody because of a crooked few. Yet, cops are believed, and expect to be believed, based on their word alone in virtually all instances. Because we know cops never lie.....:rolleyes:
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Yes, he absolutely should believe you. He has precisely zero reason not to. Whether he would is a separate question entirely.

That is a codified presumption. Inciting panic or fear... :rolleyes:

Yes, it would, because the vast majority of those claims are true. But, cops don't believe anybody because of a crooked few. Yet, cops are believed, and expect to be believed, based on their word alone in virtually all instances. Because we know cops never lie.....:rolleyes:


When you step away, you'll see you're arguing both sides of the argument and contradicting yourself.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Doesn't matter whether or not people lie to cops. (Who lie a lot under oath and on their reports, testilying anyone).

Without evidence you are breaking the law or your story isn't true they should just mind their own business.
 
Top