User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:21:09 PM EDT
[#1]
You can bet that will apply.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:28:42 PM EDT
[#2]
 Tell him nice try. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:31:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Must say though...thats a very ambiguous law.
It even says carrying a firearm is illegal. And doesn't specify any exceptions. *sigh* I tell him just to wait until he's 21 all the time. -Rob |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:41:33 PM EDT
[#4]
I would just tell him to look at section (2) and then (3)(c) and weigh the risks.
If he is the type of person who finds himself in defensive situations a lot, perhaps he should look at the source of his problems rather than try to find a solution to the symptoms. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:43:23 PM EDT
[#5]
he's a rent-a-cop. he cannot carry on the job but he got to thinking about it for his own personal protection when he's on his own time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:46:17 PM EDT
[#6]
No it doesn't say that at all.
That doesn't say it's illegal to carry a firearm, it says it's illegal to carry it in a way that will scare people. There are various local ordinances that regulate Tasers, stun guns, and similar electronic or energy devices and multiple bills were proposed in the last legislative session about the sale and use of projectile stun guns; with a committe forming to review the sale and use and added the specific crime of assault of a peace officer with a stun gun to third degree assault. ETA- a taser is a bad idea anyway, he won't have a gun to back it up and if he were to use it on someone (whether he just pointed it at them or actuallt tased them) they'd in my opinion be justified in responding with lethal force if able to do so. Tell him to go with a personal protection spray devices under RCW 9.91.160 instead. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:50:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Well...I agree with you Phil. Carrying a gun in plain sight will cause some people to lose their marbles. Anyway...yeah I noticed a few municipalities have either banned it or heavily regulated it. From what I gather so far we have: Bainbridge Island, Bellingham, Port Angeles, and Pullman. And I read abotu teh 3rd degree assault if used on an officer. Personally I feel that makes sense. -Rob |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 11:22:42 AM EDT
[#8]
I'm not seeing it. 9.41.270 as stated above is about intimidation and warranting alarm in others.
Typically, the offense (no matter how subjective) has to be in the "victim" (eg, someone would have to see or become aware of the carrying, and then feel squeamish.) Now, case law says LE cannot be the victim of such crimes. The part I am vague on is whether "warranting alarm in others" is still third-party or has somehow been interpreted by the courts as a disorderly conduct. I'm happy to stand corrected, but I believe unless someone discovers whatever "weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm" you have, you would be within your rights. This does not abridge 9.41.250(2) or any other likewise statute. "9.41.250(2) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon;" Now if someone could provide the interpreted difference between "Dangerous Weapon" and "Weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm", we may be closer to an answer.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 11:47:46 AM EDT
[#9]
I brought this up a while back, IIRC, it came down to how the Tazer is purchased, since there is a model that *I think* has to be transferred by an FFL (as a pistol?)......
The logic then is, if transferred as a pistol, you need a CPL to carry it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 12:13:27 PM EDT
[#10]
I think its a bad idea. hers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 1:44:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Pretty sure those terms are defined in the RCW, I know they are in the cheat book in the LE supply shops. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 1:51:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Pepper Spray can "produce bodily harm" as well though...
hmmm... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 2:59:03 PM EDT
[#13]
So can a fucking ballpoint pen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 3:04:00 PM EDT
[#14]
use a taser on a cop, you'll probably end up dead. There is a "civillian" taser, the M18C, it's a 1 shot deal, designed to shoot, stun and run away. I imagine it would work really well that way, it's set for a 5 second run when the trigger is pressed. There are serial numbers attached to see the registered user when deployed. Some municipalities are outlawing civilian use of the tasers, but as far as state law, they're legal. They cost about a grand though.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 3:08:11 PM EDT
[#15]
In college I carried a stun "gun". I had to walk home from work at 1am everynight and there was a serial rapist doing his magic on campus at the time (university of Michigan, 1993 or 4). I bought it off an infomercial. I never even thought that it might be illegal to carry. It looked like a lady remington shaver from the 70's It had a white pearlized outer shell. It claimed that the assailant would lose bodily function and piss his pants for a short period of time... I forget how long the window was, but it varied depending on his size and stuff.
If it is illegal, how could they sell it on an infomercial to a 19 year old? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 5:18:31 PM EDT
[#16]
That's also news to me. I had the impression that tasers were actually encouraged to be used by civilians.
Samething with pepper spray, which can be bought anywhere without any requirements or warning about legality of use. Only place I know of that restricts are airplanes, but for obvious reasons.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 6:19:10 PM EDT
[#17]
I had a half dozen flyers encouraging use of tazers to civilians. This is the one they were promoting and even offered a live human trainer if you could get 20 buyers together.
Item #: 26009 Reloadable Description: AIR TASER X26C(CITIZEN)BLACK Manufacturer: Taser International Model #: X26C Type: Taser Non-Lethal Weight: 7 oz for the X26C Additional Features 1: X26C, Battery System, 6 AIR Cartridge Reloads 15ft Additional Features 2: Carrying Case, Target, Training DVD & Certificate MSRP $999 Ouch on the price....Might as well get a real gun....A really nice real gun at that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 6:23:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Are you serious? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 6:40:12 PM EDT
[#19]
stun gun  Taser  BIG difference, stun guns are a joke, Taser not so much |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 6:50:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Bellingham Draft Ordinance AB16331 PDF Prohibits the possession, sale, or use of tasers, stun guns and similar electronic or energy devices (Passed as Ordinance No. 2005-01-006, 1-10-05)
Such a stupid law. They DO permit concealed carry of firearms with a license (as they should), but not "less than lethal" devices? Glad the whole state isn't this stupid (yet?). 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:07:16 PM EDT
[#21]
fixt not just stuff like that is illegal, batons (ASPs) and other devices are considered Deadly Weapons and can't be carried. Goes along the lines of you can't own a saed off shotgun but you can own a grenade launcher. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:18:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Thats a taste of what things would be like without state preemption. Banning of everything. Thank god for the constitution, state preemption, and everything else.
-Rob |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:26:23 PM EDT
[#23]
That X26 movie is really impressive. It that thing works as they say I would rather having it instead of a firearm. However, that choice has been already
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:33:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Yeaah! thats what he has. The X26 police issue (whatever the hell that means?)
-Rob |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:40:46 PM EDT
[#25]
I've been unable to find them, but that doesn't mean much. One could wonder, since the terms are different, whether a WACPBH is an item that doesn't rise to the level of Dangerous; and since Tasers are meant to be less-than-lethal and not cause permanent injury, I don't see how they are Dangerous Weapons. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 3:38:52 AM EDT
[#26]
So for you and the others who think this way, it's a better option to just get his ass beat? Come on, if he felt the need to use it and it failed is he really in any worse position than he was in before? And for the other person who said that a defense spray was better? Why? It's still an excalation of force. Use both for options incase one fails. Better than a tough word, and something to try before having to actually fight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 7:05:43 AM EDT
[#27]
they work better than advertized, that's why they are less than lethal not non lethal. Got plenty of friends who have been hit with them for certification. Deadly weapon special verdict — Definition.
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm -- Unlawful carrying or handling
The way I see it you're in trouble if you alarm or intimidate another while carrying a WACPBH, as you would be in trouble if you alarmed or intimidated a person at all. A WACPBH could be anything (beer bottle, axe handle, etc.) not normally defined as a Deadly Weapon but used to intimidate another, it's a WACPBH only as long as it's used to intimidate or alarm. As such, as long as no one complains about the Taser and it's not a Deadly Weapon (defined and illegal to possess) then you can carry it. That said, citizens have no place for less than lethal projectile weapons (esp one that can EASILY cause death) as citizens are ONLY authorized to shoot when in fear for their life and then their ONLY response can be lethal force, you are not authorized to shoot to wound or fire warning shots as those demonstrate that you were not in fear for your life. If he's worried about getting his ass beat I suggest he change his lifestyle. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 7:08:31 AM EDT
[#28]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 7:54:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Agreed.
I'm only playing devil's advocate - but a Deadly Weapon isn't a Dangerous Weapon, and 9.41.250(1) defines intimidation and gives a few examples of a WACPBH, but doesn't define one. RCW 9.41.010 would be a perfect place to find either of them, but the powers that be have not done such. And having "no place for a less than lethal projectile weapons" for citizens is a bit over-arching. Where does that leave the elderly, the disabled, felons and objectors? These sorts, either by fate, choice or consequence, may be unable to deploy deadly force but certainly don't lose their right to self-protection all together. Even the prescribed RCW 9.91.160 (Personal protection spray devices) acknowledges that a less-than-lethal projectile device is an option in self-defense. [/devil's advocate] |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 9:08:53 AM EDT
[#30]
sprays are not projectile weapons
felons can't carry weapons at all the elderly and disable can just as easily carry a firearm |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 6:23:14 PM EDT
[#31]
The Taser seems to be a better option to an elderly or to anyone not willing to carry the death of another person in their conscience, even to protect their own life. I still find hard to believe that anyone with an IQ higher than 50 would forbid its use by civilians. Of course, pointing a Taser or a deadly firearm to anyone without a good reason should be treated the same way on what concerns "stupid behavior". Personally, I'd still rather carry a Taser (assuming they work as well as advertised) than a firearm since it would only be for personal protection, that is close range, and it seems more effective on individuals on drugs (worst case scenario?) than a pistol. Just my 2c.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:19:11 PM EDT
[#32]
wouldn't it be a better option for ANYONE who doesn't want that? You forget that a lot of the "elderly" are WW Twice vets and will blast a MFer in a heartbeat. Any of the sheep out there are best served with a good pair of Nikes and 911 on speed dial. AFAIK it looks like Tasers can be sold to citizens, I don't know if they're legal to carry tho, sort of like butterfly knives and ASPs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:25:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Aside from the legality issue, I've never fired one. How forgiving are they when aiming? Easy to do, or similar to a pistol? Seems like it would be expensive to practice so when the adrenilan is pumping will a person who isn't used to firing a handgun of some sort going to be able to hit the target? Thinking about the disabled and others that might not be willing to carry an actual firearm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:34:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quick question;
you have a taser but two attackers to deal with. Now what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 3:17:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Shoot it sideways and try to get them to hold hands???? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:38:43 PM EDT
[#36]
IIRC they make practice cartridges, the civ model has a range of up to 15', inside that range it's much like aiming pistol. The barbs have to be spread at least 2" for the shock to be effective, that's around 7' or so. Closer and you use the device as a contact weapon. 15' (bad mojo, Tueller anyone?) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:49:36 PM EDT
[#37]
I was just chatting with an SPD friend of mine. I asked him about his experiences with a Taser. Told me he opted to not take the training. He had three reasons: 1. Didn't want one more thing hanging from his belt; 2. Didn't want to hesitate while thinking whether to draw and fire the Taser or his sidearm, that can be deadly; 3. Didn't want to have a review board questioning him down the spectrum of choices and second guessing his choice under the situation. Make a lot of sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 5:34:39 PM EDT
[#38]
 +2 -Rob |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:38:18 PM EDT
[#39]
If you have two attackers at the same time you can incapacitate one while dealing with the other or, if both are armed then even a firearm will not help (maybe assisted by a miracle  ). Or you do believe in Hollywood? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:48:35 PM EDT
[#40]
seen that video of the chain of trainees getting shocked? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:52:09 PM EDT
[#41]
In other words multiple attackers mean that you can taze one and then it's hand to hand after that, and hopefully it's over with and you are gone before the tazed one gets back up. I choose 1911 and pepperspray instead. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 9:33:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against using a normal firearm. I'm just questioning which one is more effective in stopping an attack. End justifies the mean. It seems to me that the Taser is still a better option. Regarding carrying both LawTalkingGuy makes a good point. If you carry both there will be always the questioning and/or the decision time let alone the extra load that can be very clumsy. Well well... nothing's perfect. Moreover the original point, if it's illegal to carry then there's no decision to make since it's already made. BTW... Glock... instead of 1911.  |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 9:38:53 PM EDT
[#43]
If the new ones are like the original Air Taser, it wil work like a stun gun once the cartridge has been fired. Also, if it is effective on the one you hit, he won't be getting up for a while. You tase him, then drop the unit and it will continue to shock him for a while. And the company will replace the unit (for free of course) after you send them a copy of the police report showing it was self defense. Again that was their policy when there was just the Air Taser. At first I thought you said you choose 911 and pepper spray. Somehow I missed the 1 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 9:41:13 PM EDT
[#44]
You mean that he should never go to the gas station, or the book store, or the library, or the tons of places that shit does happen? I know what you meant. But stuff can and does happen anywhere. Otherwise, why bother carrying anything unless you were going someplace you expected trouble, and then why would you even be going there? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:36:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Looked at the TASER website. It does act as a contact stun gun, even if fired first. As for the guarantee, this is what the site says:
"Reliable Protection. Lifetime Replacement Guarantee: If you use your TASER in self-defense, we recommend that you leave it attached to your attacker, incapacitating him while you get to safety. When you fire the TASER X26C, it will deliver a 10-second energy burst. However, pull the trigger two more times, and the burst is increased to 30 seconds, giving you a window of opportunity to get to safety. You can then set down the TASER X26C, and it will keep him incapacitated while you get to safety. Send us a copy of the police report, and we will replace your unit free of charge. Your life is worth more to us than the cost of a TASER device." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2005 7:02:06 AM EDT
[#46]
Bc I often go where I'm not wanted and do things some don't want me doing, just my nature. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
