Finally moved to Spokane Valley... Intimidated ....

[Superduty]

Coming from Texas it seems unnatural to oc. I'm having a difficult time doing it. It feels wrong. I am going to soon but I'm so hesitant. Worried about confrontations with the Leo's here.

I need time, I think. I have been here almost a month and have not seen a unicorn yet.

Been reading here and have learned a lot.

Note* I am VERRY well trained on handling and, accuracy under stress should not be a problem. Situations do differ.

Thanks for understanding, just throwing it out there.

Shane

 

[alexm963]

You should have made it out to Valleyfest yesterday. I was OC there with my wife and kids and ran into another couple that were both OC. He hadn't been on here, but he mentioned the 63rd militia and wanted to give me a card for them but didn't have one on him. Anyways don't worry about LEO's, as long as you know the laws you'll be fine.

 

[slapmonkay]

If your hesitant, try setting up a coffee meetup a few days in advanced at a Starbucks. I am sure you will have others from Spokane show up. If your really hesitant, show up a few min late, so your not the first there or show up CC.

 

[hermannr]

Not in TX anymore? Good, you will learn what freedom is soon. OC is not a problem unless you act like a neurvous Nelly and keep checking/gripping your carry. Read and Know RCW 9.41 and you will be just fine. There are several people that OC in Spokane, get a meet and greet together. Soon you will be as concerned about OC as you were CC in TX.

Our oldest daughter and SIL are living in TX. When they were out this sping, my SIL just smiled when I strapped up to go out to eat.

 

[amzbrady]

I used to think Texas would have the best laws for Firearm and be the least restrictive. I always figured most everyone there still carried a six gun and derringer in their pocket.

 

[golddigger14s]

Also remember, unlike TX any signs on stores prohibiting weapons have no legal authority. A business can tell you to leave, and put your gun in the car. His house, his rules. If it ever happened to me (not yet in over two years), I would just say goodbye and take my wallet which is attached to my holster and go elsewhere.

 

[Difdi]

I used to think Texas would have the best laws for Firearm and be the least restrictive. I always figured most everyone there still carried a six gun and derringer in their pocket.

Yeah, you're not the only one. Odd how the place has so many restrictions on those famous six guns.

 

[Thor80]

Welcome to Spokane Valley!

I also accidentally posted this in your other thread but it probably belongs here instead.

For your reading pleasure, the Spokane County Sheriffs training bulletin. (City of Spokane Valley Police Department is contracted to the County Sheriff, all SVPD are deputies.) You can see from this that they are pretty much aware and up to speed. I cant think of anyone here recently that has been hassled by Deputies. Also Spokane Police seems to be doing okay as there have been a few "positive" encounters with them.




-Thor

 

[modernknight]

Welcome to the forums It seemed unnatural my first few times as well, but as stated, just don't be nervous or jittery. I find sticking to the stores you're familiar with on a regular basis are the easiest ways to begin. I live next to an Albertsons and began there my first few times, then progressed to other locations (such as, most certainly, wal-mart....all sorts there!!).

Once I get back to the states after the 1st of the year I'm down for some meet ups and coffee, but hopefully by that point it'll be more natural for you

Good luck! Keep us posted!! And again, welcome!!

 

[amlevin]

Welcome to Spokane Valley!

I also accidentally posted this in your other thread but it probably belongs here instead.

For your reading pleasure, the Spokane County Sheriffs training bulletin. (City of Spokane Valley Police Department is contracted to the County Sheriff, all SVPD are deputies.) You can see from this that they are pretty much aware and up to speed. I cant think of anyone here recently that has been hassled by Deputies. Also Spokane Police seems to be doing okay as there have been a few "positive" encounters with them.

View attachment 9269
View attachment 9270

-Thor

Nice Training Bulletin. For a change it is right to the point and does't have any "weasel clauses". This should be the model for all WA State LEO training bulletins on OC. Even recognizes that a Court slapped the hands of a NM City for thinking otherwise.

I believe the precedent in the District Court would hold here in WA State as well.

 

[Trigger Dr]

Read again, paragraph 3 page 2. The wording is not entirely correct, as it says "CAUSE alarm",which is significantly different from WARRANTS alarm as stated in the RCW. This should be corrected to mirror the RCW.

 

[gogodawgs]

Read again, paragraph 3 page 2. The wording is not entirely correct, as it says "CAUSE alarm",which is significantly different from WARRANTS alarm as stated in the RCW. This should be corrected to mirror the RCW.

CITE: 101 Wn.2d 259, 676 P.2d 996 STATE v. MACIOLEK

3» The petitioners rely quite heavily on the fact that similar language, warrants alarm for safety of persons or property, was found unconstitutionally vague in BELLEVUE v. MILLER. In BELLEVUE, however, the words (prowling or wandering), which qualified the phrase, warranting alarm for safety of persons or property, were also vague and provided no guidelines for the statute's enforcement. In fact, the scope of the ordinance was found to be exceedingly broad. BELLEVUE, at 544. BELLEVUE, however, is not analogous. Unlike the language of the statute in BELLEVUE, the language in RCW 9.41.270, specific weapons, qualifies the phrase "warrants alarm for the safety of other" giving the statute a narrow scope. The weapons listed are not inherently vague like wander and prowl and are sufficiently definite so as to prevent ad hoc determination of criminality. Additionally, even if the phrase "warrants alarm" is vague, if a term or phrase can be made definite by a reasonable construction we will narrowly construe it and uphold the statute. STATE v. MARTINEZ, 85 Wn.2d 671, 538 P.2d 521 (1975). If a weapon is displayed in a manner, under circumstances and at a time and place so that it poses a threat to another person, such a display would warrant alarm for the safety of another. Thus, narrowly construing the phrase to apply to only conduct that poses a threat to others gives the phrase a narrow and definite focus and saves it from vagueness. CF. BELLEVUE v. MILLER, SUPRA at 547. Such a construction is also consistent with the statute's purpose, which is to prevent someone from displaying dangerous weapons so as to reasonably intimidate members of the public. House Journal, 41st Legislature (1969), at 201.

 

[Difdi]

Read again, paragraph 3 page 2. The wording is not entirely correct, as it says "CAUSE alarm",which is significantly different from WARRANTS alarm as stated in the RCW. This should be corrected to mirror the RCW.

Good catch. Cause alarm is wholly subjective, criminalizing lawful behavior simply if a bystander overreacts or is ignorant of the law. Warrants alarm brings a reasonableness requirement into things, even if it's still vague.

 

[Cubex DE]

Welcome to Spokane!

Be sure to check out (and contribute to) FriendOrFoe.us as you OC around town.

I felt very scared the first few times I OC'd, and I still am very cautious, but I am more afraid when I don't have my gun with me.

Still, before leaving my house I make sure I am equipped with the only protection and defense that counts for anything: I kneel and ask for God's protection and watch over me, and acknowledge that what happens will be His will and nothing I can do, with my gun or otherwise, can change His direction.

Good luck, and carry on!

 

[davidmcbeth]

Welcome to Spokane!

Be sure to check out (and contribute to) FriendOrFoe.us as you OC around town.

I felt very scared the first few times I OC'd, and I still am very cautious, but I am more afraid when I don't have my gun with me.
!

Sounds like you are in the constant state of fear . lol

Keep the Faith!

 

[hermannr]

There may be an interesting parallel to the Menacing statue in NY PL 120.14. If we have another insodence of 270 being used against an open carrier, there are a couple cases in NY (covers any deadly weapon, not necessarily just holstered pistols) where the argument that won it for the defendent was that the action was not overt and against a specific person, therefor it was not "menicing". I wonder if that type of argument was even tried in Josh's case???? Would you not consider that as intent, an overt action directed at a specific party?