Fish Or Man

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The War On Another Front

Back to DUI Blog where I find this: Police Using Pre-Written DUI Reports

One report, for instance, says the suspect "stumbled slightly when walking and swayed moderately ... with a three inch to five inch orbital rotation/sway." At least ten reports, written by the same deputy over a six-month period, use the exact same phrase. Even reports written by other deputies contain that exact phrase.

Whose the court to believe? A stumbling drunk? Or an outstanding member of society?

Our Armed Protectors...

...Just doing their jobs... again. From The Agitator, another case of not only the wrong address, but searching that wrong address without so much as a search warrant.
Lopez said as soon as they came into the apartment, they pushed him against the wall in the kitchen, and the three officers put their guns to his head.

...

When Lopez managed to see the address on the arrest warrant, pointing out the mistake to the officers, he said, "one officer turned to the other and said, 'Oh, my God.' And as soon as he said that, they left."

Lopez said they never apologized and when he asked for their names, they simply told him to take it up with the Prosecutor's Office.

And the mentioned arrest warrant was for? Another DRUG charge.

The 'War On some Drugs' is creating another class of criminal. Well, that's not exactly true. Governments have always had their tyrants. The promise in the United States of America was that the tyrants would always be extremely limited in their power.

Dare I ask, can we ever get back to our Constitutionally limited government?

(via Billy Beck)

Monday, November 28, 2005

Felons With Firearms???

Another story from Washington state, this one titled, "Felon kills one, shoots another 12 hours after posting bail"

Of course, that can't be an accurate title because, FELONS CAN'T BEAR ARMS. Well, not quite true again. That law is just MORE gun CONTROL feel-good failure. Felons can bear arms. (It actually says so in the Constitution, but no one cares about that anymore). And felons do regularly bear arms just as long as they can get away with it, (which the odds are with them doing it for quite sometime). To prove I am correct, please ask yourself why this story even makes news; Was it the absolute shock that a felon could have a gun and shoot someone? Or was it that he did it so soon after getting out of jail?

But the story only gets worse:
"Less than 12 hours after being freed on bail following a domestic complaint, a man allegedly killed his estranged girlfriend, wounded her father and then committed suicide, authorities said.

...

Twice in the past week Delisio had appealed for help in avoiding Case, whose record included felony convictions for harassment and second-degree assault, Gig Harbor Police Chief Michael Davis said Sunday.

"Our officers are devastated about what took place," Davis said. "You try to do everything conceivable to protect, but sometimes it's just not possible."

Everything conceivable was?

"Police warned Delisio and sent an officer to the bar to make sure that when Case picked up his car there he drove off in the direction away from her father's home, Davis said."

Did that warning include "arm yourselves because we can't do a darn thing to protect you"? Maybe this story needs to be titled "WAITING PERIOD KILLS AGAIN". If this lady had applied for the legal permission to buy a handgun and still more permission to be allowed to carry concealed, even the moment this FELON posted bail, they would be sending her gun and concealed pistol license to:

Teresa Marie Delisio
C/O Gig Harbor Cemetery
22 Ave NW
Gig Harbor, WA 99335

Final Notes:

Somehow, I think this judge wouldn't have let him out on bail if he had been threatening a member of the elite. And if telling someone to drive off in the other direction is "everything conceivable to protect", I sure do hope the Governor of King County doesn't visit Gig Harbor anytime soon.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Publicola Runs The Numbers

US death tolls in Iraq at 2,100. Yes, it is a sad note, but while the news media throws these numbers out it would be good to know some comparisons. From Publicola:
"So the three cities in the u.S. with the worst gun control laws have had more murders since March of 2003 than we've had deaths of u.S. troops in Iraq."

And what about the side-by-side compared to car accidents? A death toll, that as a nation, we are completely numb to.

Update: The View From North Central Idaho also runs some numbers:

"Where would you be less likely to be killed? As a resident of Washington D.C.? Or an american serviceman in Iraq?"

.

Friday, November 25, 2005

Jail Break Last Night Not Far Away

I would figure this would be making national news... if you missed it, Yakima Jail Break:
Early reports indicate that the inmates escaped through the ceiling of a cell on the 4th floor and gained access to the roof. Several inmates involved in the escape fashioned bed sheets to make a rope to hang out over the side of the building and drop down to the adjacent Annex (another housing unit) which is only 1 story high. From there, the inmates jumped off the roof to the sidewalk below.


They caught some of them, but one excapee still on the run was in for MURDER, (glad to see this was a MAXIMUM security prison).

Message to those four still on the run:

I am currently standing directly between you and the Canadian border... if you wanna get there, it would be wise to attempt to do so peacefully... (and citizens farther north of me are even more likely to be armed, {including our released felons!}). Or better yet... Head West, Young Man, Head West! Your odds of finding a disarmed victim improve the closer to Seattle you get.




Back to my still imprisoned readers:

Are you currently protecting yourself and loved ones with maximum security? Or are you counting on the minimum false security police provide? Maybe you are just playing the odds*?


* Gamblers play worse odds.
If you're a white, nonhispanic, California female 35-49 years old, living in a metropolitan area like 97% of Californians do, and your household has a little over the average annual income, your chance of being the victim of murder, rape or other violent crime during any year is only about 11 in a thousand (1.1%) based on data from the 1995 FBI Uniform Crime Report and the US Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey. Of a hundred people like you in your neighborhood, ma'am, only about 1 of you will be a victim of violent crime in the course of this year, but about 11 of you will over a 10 year period. And a fifth of you will over a 20 year period.

.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving!

...oh... and it's my birthday!

Recent thoughts:

Tacoma Mall shooting... 20 year old goes into a mall with AK style rifle and starts firing and only ONE person draws down on this scumbag... ONE FREAKING PERSON!!! Sadly that one person was taken out and is fighting for his life. A simple solution could have ended this... a higher percentaged of citizens being armed... What's the focus of media, (and police)? How he purchased his "assault weapon"? Turns out from a little nickel ad... ohhhhh the horror. I've yet to see the story or hear officer (not-so-gun) friendly explain how this could have ended with much less blood shed with a politely armed society.

So, is anyone else stupified by the fact that in a "Concealed Pistol License FRIENDLY state" like Washington, there still aren't enough packing to stop one scumbag with $300 and some time to KILL? When it comes to self-defense this state, heck... this country might as well already be disarmed. Think about it... we can't stop one shooter, (with poor aim), even in a place STILL legal to carry with that CPL permission slip! What if there were half a dozen terrorists in that mall going dressing room to dressing room killing all those good defenseless citizens trying to cover their heads in the sand?

Final Note:

You alone are not enough! TEACH MORE OF THOSE YOU HANG OUT WITH TO SHOOT AND WORK AT THEM UNTIL THEY ARE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO CARRY EVERYWHERE, (INCLUDING THE MALL)! Likely once they become comfortable around firearms and are giving some facts, they won't want to leave their means of self-defense behind. Just speak plainly to them... this issue is simple enough for most folks to easily see through the smoke screen our media and government are putting up as the answer: MORE gun CONTROL.

And just because you are packing DOESN'T MEAN YOUR SPOUSE SHOULDN'T BE AS WELL! Its not just the police that need backup! Lord knows, Brendan McKown could have used some in Tacoma... and Mark Wilson in Texas too.

You deserve backup too, now go out there and GET SOME!

Spark Your Interest?

Via K-house enews:

"The Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo has announced plans to provide cheap heating fuel to low-income communities in Boston, Chicago, and New York. According to the Boston Globe daily, the deal is the result of negotiations initiated by William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democrat in the House of Representatives, who brokered the deal with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The non-profit organization involved in distributing the fuel, Citizens Energy Corporation, was founded by Joseph Kennedy II, a liberal activist and son of the late senator Robert F. Kennedy.

The fact that someone like Chavez is taking an interest in helping America's underprivileged should raise red flags. After all, Chavez dealings with the United States have been anything but diplomatic. Make no mistake, this latest maneuver is not an act of charity. It is a calculated political maneuver to buy influence among members of congress. He has made similar deals in neighboring countries as a means of strengthening ties and supporting those with similar ideals. In Nicaragua, for example, Chavez has proposed oil sales at below market price to political leaders with socialist leanings.

Over the last year, foreign relations between the United States and Venezuela have steadily gotten worse. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused Washington of plotting to overthrow his government. He has also accused Christian missionaries from New Tribes Missions (NTM) of spying for the CIA. Venezuela's interior ministry has given Americans with NTM three months to leave the country. NTM has repeatedly denied accusations of wrongdoing in Venezuela and has urged Chavez to reconsider.

Before President Chavez came to power in 1998, oil-rich Venezuela was a wealthy nation and one of South America's oldest democracies. This wealth attracted a large influx of poor immigrants from neighboring Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and the Caribbean. The poor became increasingly resentful of the wealthy and middle class. Chavez, who had been imprisoned for a failed coup in 1992 but was later released, became the champion of the poor during the 1998 elections.

Chavez, an avowed socialist, won the election with 56 percent of the vote. He immediately embraced Cuba's communist leader, Fidel Castro, as Venezuela's chief ally. He also called Iraq's Saddam Hussein his "brother" and aligned himself with Libya's Moammar Qadaffi. Chavez then formed alliances with North Korea's Kim Yong-Il and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Venezuela is one of the founding members of OPEC and is strongly aligned with the Islamic oil producing nations of the Middle East. President Hugo Chavez has repeatedly defended Iran in its dispute with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program, saying Iran has a right to atomic energy.

Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists. Middle Eastern terrorist groups are operating cells in Venezuela, including support cells for organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Lebanon.

Our dependence on foreign oil, the effect of political instability on the world energy market, and the infiltration of Islamic radicals into South America are serious concerns. Although the situation in Venezuela has been largely overshadowed by events in the Middle East, it still poses a serious threat to the interests and security of the United States. "

Related Links:

Venezuela to sell cheap fuel oil to US poor - AFP
Give Thanks to America's 'Nemesis': Cheap Oil for America's Poor - ABC News
Venezuela's Undermining of Democracy - US State Department
Talk of U.S. plots against Chavez stir concern, doubt in Venezuela - San Diego Union-Tribune
Venezuela orders US religious group out - Sydney Morning Herald


Once again, brought to you via K-House Enews.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Prior and Proper Preparations

Been traveling again.

Started last week up at mothers. Got several loads of firewood to insure that she can make it through even the worst winter.

Now at my brothers. The clutch is installed and just working on getting things back together. As I'm getting older, I'm really starting to believe it easier to just throw money to the repair shop then actually do it yourself. This seems especially true with cars... they are getting more and more complicated and it is difficult to keep up. If it had been my car it might have ended up at the shop, but, with three kids and living on a teacher's salary, money always seems tight for my brother, so I just do the work.

Anyway, while out the mom and I were out wood gathering, we took her nightstand gun and gave it a workout. While we didn't practice any quick draws, if we had we would have done well following Mr. Rummell's advice on the topic; Fill Your Hand

.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Did Another "Yellow Canary" Die Today?

From AP wire:

Police shot a man after he crashed a truck into a downtown courthouse early Saturday, ending a pursuit that began when he allegedly set fire to several squad cars in a nearby town and shot at an officer who chased him.
...
"We have a few indications of what might have motivated him," said Marion County District Attorney Walt Beglau. He declined to elaborate.

Just a guess, but I'd say some of your deputies violated this man's rights. You know that whole Constitution, (what you all swore NOT to violate). And since he also attacked the Courthouse, I'm guessing they also took an officer's word over any of us "civilians".

Yeah, yeah, I know. "Police are just doing their jobs." Tell me that when they are dragging you out of your house so a hotel can be built on your land through eminent domain. Yet another ruling code enforcement officers are required to play along with if they want to stay in the power game. No wonder their sucide rate is so high.

If the story turns out to be some mass murderer trying to run, I take everything back. Neither the police nor the courts would allow the violation of the Constitution. Police are outstanding members of society just doing their jobs. It's what our elected politicians told them to do, anyway. Besides, the courts would never allow police to violate the Constitution, (nevermind how blatantly Unconstitutional some actions are). Keep up the good work.

UPDATE: Yes, I know he didn't actually die. It also sounds like his beef was mostly his life falling apart... which apears to have made him inclined to push the reset button too early. Or not early enough?

Friday, November 11, 2005

Ask Them This Question

If you want someone to listen to your ideas, you should find some common ground.

With that in mind, next time you hear someone complaining about government, no matter what the issue: Bush/Hitler; stolen elections; the war on terror; war on *some* drugs; police brutality; corrupt officials; salmon recovery; FEMA; ...ect. Ask them this question;
With what you are saying, do you still trust government enough to give up your gun rights?

Likely you will find some common ground. It is then just a matter of defining "gun rights". A discussion I always enjoy when done with someone not hell bent on taking them away.

Now if the above question doesn't find you some common ground, you have yourself a raving moon-bat. Don't worry, their season is always open.

.

If They Admit to Being Underage

Don't buy them that beer;
The whole situation pissed me off. Here were a handful of undercover cops assigned to trap suckers at 7-11. Is the LAPD under the impression they've got the rest of the crime in Los Angeles so well under control they have to set people up to commit victimless crimes? Or has the new subway system cut into the lucrative business of parking violations so now they have to resort to even seedier methods of collecting fines?


.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Bumper Sticker Not Yet Seen

Open Carry is the "Rosa Parks" of Gun Rights.


Yes, gun rights are in there too. Remember that part about shall not infringe...


So, as a gun owner are you tired of sitting in the back of the bus?

Sunday, November 06, 2005

City Of Ellensburg Brief

The City of Ellensburg got their Respondent's Brief in just under the deadline. I've had requests for copies of it, so I figured I would post it here, (or atleast the text of it here). Those with knowledge of the legal issues involved, feel free to give input in comments or at shootatfish@yahoo.com
Thanks.

I. Index of Cases
A. Seattle v Riggins, 63 Wn. App. 313, 314 (1991)
B. Bellingham v Schampers, 57 Wn. 2d 106, 109 (1960)
C. State v Brayman, 110 WN.2d 183, 193 (1988) cited from Riggins
D. State v Rabon, 45 Wn. App. 832 (1986)

II. Index of Statutes
A. ECC 7.32.08
B. RCW 9.41.290
C. RCW 9.41.270

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
On May 22, 2004, Michael ***** was working as a bank teller intern at Washington Mutual Bank at the Fred Meyer store in Ellensburg, Washington. At approximately 11 am, Mr. ***** was working at the front teller station closest to the door when he noticed FishorMan walking towards the bank through the Fred Meyer Store. Mr. *****'s attention was drawn to FishorMan because FishorMan had the handle of a pistol sticking out of the front of his jeans. FishorMan entered the bank and came to Mr. ****** teller station. Although FishorMan was courteous while handling this transaction, Mr. ****** was uncomfortable because of the exposed gun in FishorMan's trousers. Mr. ****** dealt with FishorMan for approximately one minute and Mr. ***** then left the Washington Mutual Bank after his transaction was completed. After consulting with his supervisor, Mr. ****** decided to call law enforcement.

Destine ######, the supervisor on duty at the Washington Mutual Bank on May 22, 20004, observed his employee Michael ****** immediately after Michael had contact with FishorMan. Destine described his observations of Michael as "shaken up, kind of like bewilderness. Like he couldn't believe that someone had just done that, I guess. I don't know. He was kind of shocked, kind of . . . His whole aura." He wasn't like his normal self after helping a customer. Destine ###### contacted law enforcement and explained to law enforcement what they had observed in the bank.

Officer Ray --------- then made contact with FishorMan in the Fred Meyer store. Officer "Ray" observed the firearm in FishorMan's waistband. The weapon was a 1911-style .45 caliber pistol with the hammer cocked back and it was not in a holster. Officer "Ray" tried to explain to FishorMan that he was investigating a complaint at which point FishorMan said, "If I'm not in violation, get out of my face." FishorMan then raised his voice and became agitated and angry with Officer "Ray". FishorMan also began yelling at Officer "Ray".

Officer "Ray" ultimately allowed FishorMan to leave and did not cite FishorMan at that time.

FishorMan was charged by complaint which was filed with the district court on June 3, 2004. On March 3, 2005 a pre-trial motion was held where the defendant moved to dismiss the charge against him based upon the unconstitutionality of the Ellensburg City Code 7.32.08. In an oral ruling, Judge Ellis denied FishorMan's motion, (appellant did not transcribe any of the pretrial hearing). On May 6, 2005, a jury convicted FishorMan of unlawful display of weapon, ECC 7.32.08, on May 6, 2005.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
ECC 7.32.08 (Unlawful Display of Weapons ordinance) does not infringe the right to bear arms under Article One, section 24 of the Washington Constitution.

Article One, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution provides individual citizens with the right to bear arms. It reads as follows:

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the
state, should not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as
authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed
body of men.

The right to bear arms, however, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation by the state under its police power. Seattle v Riggins, 63 Wn. App. 313, 314 (1991). Municipalities have broad powers to enact police regulations. Bellingham v Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 109 (1960). Reasonable police regulations will be upheld unless (1) the regulation conflicts with the state law; or, (2) the legislature has clearly and explicitly stated its intention to preempt the power of the local government to legislate in a particular area. Id.
With respect to weapons, the state of Washington has clearly stated its intent to preempt the power of local governments to legislate in that area. RCW 9.41.290 ("State preemption") states the following:
The state of Washington fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

FishorMan has challenged the constitutionality of the Ellensburg City Code 7.32.08 on the basis that the language of that ordinance is "more restrictive than" the language of the corresponding state statute and that the ordinance therefore cannot withstand constitutionality scrutiny. However, FishorMan has failed to meet the heavy burden imposed upon one who challenges the constitutionality of an ordinance.
A legislative enactment is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging it bears the burden of proving it unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Riggins citing State v Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 193, (1988). If the court can reasonably conceive of a state of facts which would justify the legislation, then those facts will be presumed to exist and the statute will be presumed to have been passed with reference to those facts. Id. Where legislation tends to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public and bears a substantial relation to that purpose, every presumption in favor of constitutionality will be made. Id.

ECC 7.32.08 (making, selling, concealing weapons) reads as follows:

It is unlawful for any person to…. Carry or conceal any dagger, dirk, knife,
pistol, or other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm in a manner,
under circumstances, and at a time or place that either manifests and intends to
intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons;. . .

The corresponding relevant state statute is RCW 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, in a manner, under
circumstances, and at a time or place that either manifest an intent to
intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
2. . . .
. . .
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 each 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 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.

Although the city ordinance does not include the exceptions set forth in RCW 9.41.270, that does not render the city ordinance inconsistent with or more restrictive than the state statute. The city ordinance would be inconsistent with or more restrictive than the state statute if the city ordinance imposed a total ban on carrying, exhibiting or displaying a firearm. However, the city does not place that total ban. Instead, the city, just as the state does, restricts the carrying of a weapon or firearm "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." Simply because the ordinance excludes the defenses allowed for under the state law does not mean that those defenses are not available to a person charged under the city code. Just as the defense of "self-defense" is not outline in any assault statute, a person charged with ECC 7.32.08 would be entitled to defend that he was acting for the purpose of protecting himself. That person would not be precluded from raising that defense even though it is not noted in the statute as a specific defense. It would then be up to the trier of fact to determine whether or not that person was, in fact, protecting himself or instead had the intent to intimidate another with no lawful purpose.


Because the legislature appears to have clearly stated its intention to preempt the power of local governments to legislate in the area of firearms, it is not necessary to examine RCW 9.41.270 in relation to ECC 7.32.08 in terms of a conflict analysis. However, it should be noted that even if preemption were not clearly stated by the state, the city ordinance would likewise survive a challenge to the ordinance as being in conflict with the state statute. An ordinance is considered to conflict with the state statute when the ordinance declares something to be right which the state law declares to be wrong, or vice versa. State v Rabon, 45 Wn. App. 832 (1986). In this instance, both the ordinance and statute prohibit identical conduct. Again, the state's specific inclusion of exceptions does not preclude a person charged with the city ordinances from raising those defenses. The core prohibited conduct in both the ordinance and statute is identical.

Because FishorMan limited his constitutional challenge to the preemption issue, the city will not address either overbreadth or vagueness issues.


III. CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the Ellensburg City Ordinance ECC 7.32.08 is not unconstitional and FishorMan's appeal should be denied.

Dated this ______
Respectfully submitted,
Ellensburg City Prosecutor