Post by: timberghost72 on August 09, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
This was on Mt. Pilchuck trail which is NF and State
land towards the top. He wasnt threatening anyone but trail was closed and he was escorted off.
Thoughts? I know its a popular trail but he didnt break
Any laws. Also lots of hunting area to be accessed from the trail away from people on the backside of the mountain.
Post by: Bmcox86 on August 09, 2014, 07:58:37 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 09, 2014, 08:00:21 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 09, 2014, 08:05:40 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 09, 2014, 08:15:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 09, 2014, 08:15:58 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on August 09, 2014, 08:16:58 PM
Post by: pcal on August 09, 2014, 08:19:45 PM
Post by: pcal on August 09, 2014, 08:21:48 PM
I hope the person who was illegally escorted off the trail files a lawsuit against whatever agency violated his rights. :twocents::tup:
Post by: coachcw on August 09, 2014, 08:22:09 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on August 09, 2014, 08:23:28 PM
The trail was closed, so how can you say he wasn't breaking any laws? Maybe that's why he was escorted off?
Because it says that he was escorted off because other people felt uncomfortable. No reason to believe otherwise. Especially since that info came from the Verlot Station.
Quote from the thread
update
I just spoke with someone at the Verlot ranger station. I was told that this is a tricky situation since it is legal to carry in the state of WA. The young man was in fact carrying a real rifle and was escorted off of the trail since people were uncomfortable. Whether it was loaded or not was not addressed.
Post by: Curly on August 09, 2014, 08:31:58 PM
Post by: NW-GSP on August 09, 2014, 08:45:15 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on August 09, 2014, 08:49:35 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 09, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
The trail was closed, so how can you say he wasn't breaking any laws? Maybe that's why he was escorted off?
The trail was open and other people were passing the guy, please read the info again. Unless it was a gun free zone, his rights were violated!
Post by: bobcat on August 09, 2014, 08:51:29 PM
The trail was closed, so how can you say he wasn't breaking any laws? Maybe that's why he was escorted off?Because it says that he was escorted off because other people felt uncomfortable. No reason to believe otherwise. Especially since that info came from the Verlot Station.
I was just going off your statement in the original post where you said that "the trail was closed." But I took that the wrong way, and thought you were saying the that he had been hiking on a closed trail, not that they closed it because of him and his gun.
Yeah, if I lived closer I'd go for a hike up that trail tomorrow with my bear rifle.
Post by: bobcat on August 09, 2014, 08:53:53 PM
The trail was closed, so how can you say he wasn't breaking any laws? Maybe that's why he was escorted off?
The trail was open and other people were passing the guy, please read the info again. Unless it was a gun free zone, his rights were violated!
I did read it again, Dale. I misunderstood the post. I was confused how he could be walking on a closed trail yet no laws were broken.
Post by: timberghost72 on August 09, 2014, 08:58:24 PM
The trail was closed, so how can you say he wasn't breaking any laws? Maybe that's why he was escorted off?Because it says that he was escorted off because other people felt uncomfortable. No reason to believe otherwise. Especially since that info came from the Verlot Station.
I was just going off your statement in the original post where you said that "the trail was closed." But I took that the wrong way, and thought you were saying the that he had been hiking on a closed trail, not that they closed it because of him and his gun.
Yeah, if I lived closer I'd go for a hike up that trail tomorrow with my bear rifle.
:tup:
It is an awesome hike up to the lookout and worth it if you're ever in the area.
I will say though that the upper portion of the hike and a large portion of the Pilchuck ridge is a State Park so no hunting up there if anyone is inclined to do so. Not real well known that it's a State Park up top.
Post by: Curly on August 09, 2014, 10:31:21 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,152130.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,152130.0.html)
Post by: TVHunts on August 10, 2014, 05:26:01 AM
Well I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution is anyones personal comfort(able) level mentioned. It does however state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Weird huh? I am more than ready to show up for a fully armed and loaded hike.
Unfortunately this is how gun owners get their rights infringed on frequently. All anyone has to do is call 911 and say that it made them uncomfortable to have some carrying. Then, the cops have cause "in their opinion" to take action. Happens all the time and it is wrong.
He should find a good lawyer and sue, I agree! The only way it will change is if it hits some of these jurisdictions in the wallet or over reacting.
Post by: TVHunts on August 10, 2014, 05:39:49 AM
It will be interesting to find out as to why. So far I have not heard anything to suggest he was up there for bad intentions. Just out walking his rifle :chuckle: I am up that mountain at least twice a year and always have a side arm on (not that I feel threatened there. It is a very high use trail)
I for one don't feel safe if I don't carry. It doesn't matter where or what I am doing. Only time I do not is if it is illegal to do so, courthouse, etc. I honestly feel the people who don't carry are the ones who are crazy. As the saying goes " I'd rather have it and not need it then to need it and not have it" I am not afraid or paranoid, just informed and aware.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 10, 2014, 09:22:15 AM
sat night
spent the night at pilchuck sat night and had to stop a complete moron from lighting a campfire on the deck leading out to the rocks.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 10, 2014, 01:44:20 PM
Well I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution is anyones personal comfort(able) level mentioned. It does however state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Weird huh? I am more than ready to show up for a fully armed and loaded hike.
.................don't forget your ATV too washelkhunter....... :chuckle:
Post by: Badhabit on August 10, 2014, 02:04:59 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 10, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
Post by: Badhabit on August 10, 2014, 04:15:19 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 11, 2014, 07:04:05 AM
Post by: boneaddict on August 11, 2014, 07:08:12 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on August 11, 2014, 08:20:32 AM
There is a fine line that is being walked in that area that is based entirely on fear. See, several years ago a mother-daughter duo out on a day hike were murdered in a crime that is still unsolved. For a couple years following the incident the visitor numbers drastically declined based on the fear created by a monster on the loose. Nearly all the stores in Granite Falls still display Reward posters that explain the crime, the victims, and inform hikers that the killer is still at large. This terrible incident altered the mental landscape of hikers in that area and created a fear of the possibility that it could happen again because the killer is still at large.
Like I said, I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon but there is also a level of sensitivity in that area that hikers and LE deal with that makes the issue less than black and white. I don't like it but I understand it. I would like to hear an official account of the incident rather than base my reaction on posts from people who encountered only a few seconds of an incident that it seems no one really witnessed the conclusion of. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on August 11, 2014, 08:21:06 AM
Post by: grundy53 on August 11, 2014, 08:24:22 AM
Although I totally disagree with the outcome of this incident if it truly was handled by LE the way it is described in the posts, I will play the devil's advocate with my next statement:
There is a fine line that is being walked in that area that is based entirely on fear. See, several years ago a mother-daughter duo out on a day hike were murdered in a crime that is still unsolved. For a couple years following the incident the visitor numbers drastically declined based on the fear created by a monster on the loose. Nearly all the stores in Granite Falls still display Reward posters that explain the crime, the victims, and inform hikers that the killer is still at large. This terrible incident altered the mental landscape of hikers in that area and created a fear of the possibility that it could happen again because the killer is still at large.
Like I said, I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon but there is also a level of sensitivity in that area that hikers and LE deal with that makes the issue less than black and white. I don't like it but I understand it. I would like to hear an official account of the incident rather than base my reaction on posts from people who encountered only a few seconds of an incident that it seems no one really witnessed the conclusion of. :twocents:
I disagree. That is all the more reason to carry. If there is a murderer on the loose I'm dang sure going to protect my self. Also sensitivity doesn't give an exception from the constitution.
Post by: bobcat on August 11, 2014, 08:32:45 AM
People would still see that I had a gun, but it would be less intimidating.
Having said that, I still don't agree that law enforcement had the right to escort him out of the area.
Tough issue, not sure what the answer is, other than people do need to be more sensitive to other people who are afraid of guns.
Post by: grundy53 on August 11, 2014, 08:39:11 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 11, 2014, 08:40:38 AM
I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon, especially in the outdoors.
[/quote]
Why not leave it at that? Before you know it, just talking about our Constitutional rights will "make people feel uncomfortable". Like I said, the woods isn't Starbucks or Target. It's the freakin' woods. Even state law recognizes the rights of citizens to protect themselves far away from the warm embrace of police by allowing people without a permit to carry concealed. The fact that we are an open carry state AND this guy was out in the woods makes this event unfathomable to anyone who's afraid that each infringement upon our 2A rights leads finally to its removal from our beloved Constitution.
This is a big step in the wrong direction. If you value your rights under the 2nd Amendment, you should be writing someone about this. I am.
Post by: Chase 1 on August 11, 2014, 08:41:43 AM
Although I totally disagree with the outcome of this incident if it truly was handled by LE the way it is described in the posts, I will play the devil's advocate with my next statement:
There is a fine line that is being walked in that area that is based entirely on fear. See, several years ago a mother-daughter duo out on a day hike were murdered in a crime that is still unsolved. For a couple years following the incident the visitor numbers drastically declined based on the fear created by a monster on the loose. Nearly all the stores in Granite Falls still display Reward posters that explain the crime, the victims, and inform hikers that the killer is still at large. This terrible incident altered the mental landscape of hikers in that area and created a fear of the possibility that it could happen again because the killer is still at large.
Like I said, I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon but there is also a level of sensitivity in that area that hikers and LE deal with that makes the issue less than black and white. I don't like it but I understand it. I would like to hear an official account of the incident rather than base my reaction on posts from people who encountered only a few seconds of an incident that it seems no one really witnessed the conclusion of. :twocents:
I disagree. That is all the more reason to carry. If there is a murderer on the loose I'm dang sure going to protect my self. Also sensitivity doesn't give an exception from the constitution.
Like I said, I agree with you. I don't agree with the outcome as it was described...not at all. I would however like to hear an official report about the incident rather than base judgment on an "I heard" account. I was merely making a statement to inform but in no way did I or would I say that this reaction is acceptable. Like you I'm sure, I a very well aware that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 11, 2014, 08:47:09 AM
Early on Sunday, a scary-looking man with a sign that read, "Obama Is Doing A Terrible Job!" was escorted off NF land because hikers were offended by the message and scared of what he might do with the placard. A spokesman from the NFS, Ranger John "I am the Government" Doe was quoted as saying, "We must respect the sensibilities of scared masses who need the government up their butts all the time to 'protect' them. In addition, speaking out against the greatest President that ever lived is an abomination and should never be tolerated by patriotic Americans." The scary-looking man was later jailed on charges of disturbing the peace, being politically incorrect, and subversion, a felony which carries the death penalty under that Patriot Obedience Act.
Post by: Curly on August 11, 2014, 08:49:03 AM
From the info we have so far, it does seem odd that they closed the trail and escorted this guy out of there if he was simply hiking with his rifle? :dunno: Maybe the guy was mouthy toward the other hikers and toward the officers? :dunno:
Post by: Chase 1 on August 11, 2014, 08:51:44 AM
I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon, especially in the outdoors.
Why not leave it at that? Before you know it, just talking about our Constitutional rights will "make people feel uncomfortable". Like I said, the woods isn't Starbucks or Target. It's the freakin' woods. Even state law recognizes the rights of citizens to protect themselves far away from the warm embrace of police by allowing people without a permit to carry concealed. The fact that we are an open carry state AND this guy was out in the woods makes this event unfathomable to anyone who's afraid that each infringement upon our 2A rights leads finally to its removal from our beloved Constitution.
This is a big step in the wrong direction. If you value your rights under the 2nd Amendment, you should be writing someone about this. I am.
[/quote]
Who will you be writing to? Will your first letter at least inquire whether any part of the story is based on fact?
Post by: bobcat on August 11, 2014, 08:51:52 AM
And again, I still don't agree that the police had any right to escort him off the mountain.
Post by: bigtex on August 11, 2014, 08:55:06 AM
All I know is I have ALWAYS specifically avoided places that are overrun with hikers when I go hunting. They are scared of guns and scaring people takes away from the hunting experience for me. So I just avoid that type of situation. It's really not hard to do.:yeah:
And the few times I have hunted in areas with hikers (mainly high buck on the main trail en route to my spot) I always try to disguise my gun in my pack until I get to a spot where I know I am alone.
It may be legal to pack your rifle around all over, but for me, I'd rather not have to waste my hunting time talking to LE because people freaked out and thought I was the next serial killer.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 11, 2014, 09:14:25 AM
I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon, especially in the outdoors.
Why not leave it at that? Before you know it, just talking about our Constitutional rights will "make people feel uncomfortable". Like I said, the woods isn't Starbucks or Target. It's the freakin' woods. Even state law recognizes the rights of citizens to protect themselves far away from the warm embrace of police by allowing people without a permit to carry concealed. The fact that we are an open carry state AND this guy was out in the woods makes this event unfathomable to anyone who's afraid that each infringement upon our 2A rights leads finally to its removal from our beloved Constitution.
This is a big step in the wrong direction. If you value your rights under the 2nd Amendment, you should be writing someone about this. I am.
Who will you be writing to? Will your first letter at least inquire whether any part of the story is based on fact?
[/quote]
Yes, the inquiry I sent asked if there was any incident regarding someone with a firearm this weekend at Mt. Pilchuck.. infocent@parks.wa.gov
Post by: timberghost72 on August 11, 2014, 09:22:13 AM
Post by: boneaddict on August 11, 2014, 09:23:48 AM
Post by: RadSav on August 11, 2014, 09:47:36 AM
Post by: hntrspud on August 11, 2014, 10:03:15 AM
Although I totally disagree with the outcome of this incident if it truly was handled by LE the way it is described in the posts, I will play the devil's advocate with my next statement:
There is a fine line that is being walked in that area that is based entirely on fear. See, several years ago a mother-daughter duo out on a day hike were murdered in a crime that is still unsolved. For a couple years following the incident the visitor numbers drastically declined based on the fear created by a monster on the loose. Nearly all the stores in Granite Falls still display Reward posters that explain the crime, the victims, and inform hikers that the killer is still at large. This terrible incident altered the mental landscape of hikers in that area and created a fear of the possibility that it could happen again because the killer is still at large.
I understand what you are saying but I could use that argument on any other place around that has had a killing of one sort or another that the person has not been caught for. If people are truly in fear then why are they still hiking there? Better yet, why dont they take conceal carry classes to better equip themselves if such a situation would arise? :twocents:
Like I said, I disagree with any law abiding citizens right to carry being infringed upon but there is also a level of sensitivity in that area that hikers and LE deal with that makes the issue less than black and white. I don't like it but I understand it. I would like to hear an official account of the incident rather than base my reaction on posts from people who encountered only a few seconds of an incident that it seems no one really witnessed the conclusion of. :twocents:
Post by: Stein on August 11, 2014, 10:08:17 AM
My guess is that it didn't happen. Guy had rifle, cops called, cops talk to guy, cops go home and guy goes on his merry way.
Police has to respond to MWAG, especially when the details are usually shaky and by someone not familiar with the laws or firearms in general.
This is what causes the problem:
Quote
IMHO guns have no place on popular hiking trails. This is obvious.Translated "Anyone not like me should not be here."
Post by: Mark Brenckle on August 11, 2014, 10:17:20 AM
Post by: timberfaller on August 12, 2014, 09:25:12 AM
I was sighting my rifle in on private property in Mazama,WA. about a 45 minutes into it, here comes my father in law with the local game warden.
The game warden had received a call from a "wet sider" who had come over to the cabin in the woods and had heard my shooting.
They turned me in for "possible poaching" :chuckle:
Since I was well known by the game warden(used him in every Hunter Ed class)very well, he approached me with a big grin on his face and my father in law trying not to laugh!
Told me what had transpired and that HE no matter what, had to come to the "site" referred to, to investigate. HE told me he knew immediately who was doing the "shooting" by location given him. BUT still had to make the trip and at the end apologized for interrupting my fun!
I won't go into what we thought of the "wet sider"
He also was responsible for our neighbor and us(6 total) having to put out a fire he started in mid July later on his property. Loggers were on hoot owl(extreme dry for those that don't know what that means) and he decided that since it sprinkled the nite before it was ok to burn his weeds!!!! :bdid:
I won't give out his profession, it will just make the story even more ridiculous and enrage some here. They already have let me know how they think about me and the stands I take. :chuckle:
Post by: wafisherman on August 12, 2014, 09:47:58 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 12, 2014, 06:24:02 PM
Post by: csaaphill on August 13, 2014, 08:19:04 AM
Carrying an MSR in Starbucks is one thing. Carrying in the woods is another altogether. Does this mean that hunters are going to be harassed during hunting season now? This is ridiculous.YES WE ARE and it's already happening.
I had something like this happen last year deer hunting got back to pick up only to have a Game warrden there to chekc me out.
after all was said and done he left, but some women who was parked right behind him, and I could see her while walking back she was sitting there watching and waiting to see what was going ot happen to me which was nothing since I checked out.
When she drove off and passed me she gave me the dirtiest look you'd ever want to see. SO ya it will.
Goes along with with what I said about being swated to death about people Liberals anti gun people calling the cops on you when they see you have a gun. In this case an assault looking rifle.
So be carefull peeps out there this year and keep carrying them any hows don't let thsi crap scare us. If i was near there and owned an assualt rifle and if there was a protest to address this crap I'd join in!
I actually hope some do get at least 5-6 out there with assault weapons and hike it!
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 08:22:53 AM
Post by: csaaphill on August 13, 2014, 08:29:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 10:49:44 AM
"Dear Mr. (Pianoman) -
I was not aware of any incident involving a firearm at Mt. Pilchuck prior to this morning. However , I’ve been doing some research and have been told there was an incident involving a Snohomish County Sheriff’s Deputy sometime in the last few weeks in which a person was escorted out of the park. Washington State Parks, unfortunately, does not have a staff person on site in the park regularly so the report of incidents sometimes takes a while. That is all that I know right now and I am trying to get more detail from them.
Sincerely-
Shawn T. Tobin, MPA & MURP
NW Region South
Region Manager
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 10:53:51 AM
Was this on land managed by Washington State Parks?
I believe so, but am unsure. If so, county sheriffs would have jurisdiction, if that's your concern.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on August 13, 2014, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: timberfaller link=topic=158573.msg2097762#msg2097762
date=1407860712
date=1407860712
Reminds me of the issue I had to deal with some time ago.
I was sighting my rifle in on private property in Mazama,WA. about a 45 minutes into it, here comes my father in law with the local game warden.
The game warden had received a call from a "wet sider" who had come over to the cabin in the woods and had heard my shooting.
They turned me in for "possible poaching" :chuckle:
Since I was well known by the game warden(used him in every Hunter Ed class)very well, he approached me with a big grin on his face and my father in law trying not to laugh!
Told me what had transpired and that HE no matter what, had to come to the "site" referred to, to investigate. HE told me he knew immediately who was doing the "shooting" by location given him. BUT still had to make the trip and at the end apologized for interrupting my fun!
I won't go into what we thought of the "wet sider"
He also was responsible for our neighbor and us(6 total) having to put out a fire he started in mid July later on his property. Loggers were on hoot owl(extreme dry for those that don't know what that means) and he decided that since it sprinkled the nite before it was ok to burn his weeds!!!! :bdid:
I won't give out his profession, it will just make the story even more ridiculous and enrage some here. They already have let me know how they think about me and the stands I take. :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on August 13, 2014, 11:43:20 AM
Post by: montana44mag on August 13, 2014, 11:54:17 AM
Some hikers were bothered by the sight of one man with a gun, politely open carrying, so they called up a whole bunch of guys with guns, body armor, trained attack dogs, and a plethora of deadly and not-so-deadly gadgets and gizmos to go mess with him?
It amazes me how often these so called anti-gun people use guns through a public servant. These people are not even anti-gun, they are anti-human rights, pro-authoritarians, who point the guns of government at anyone who makes them uncomfortable.
It sounds like he was also kidnapped under duress.
Disgusting.
Post by: Russ McDonald on August 13, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
By Google Maps it shows Mt. Pilchuck State Forest. So that would make it state managed.Was this on land managed by Washington State Parks?
I believe so, but am unsure. If so, county sheriffs would have jurisdiction, if that's your concern.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 11:59:10 AM
Wait, wait....lemme get this straight.
Some hikers were bothered by the sight of one man with a gun, politely open carrying, so they called up a whole bunch of guys with guns, body armor, trained attack dogs, and a plethora of deadly and not-so-deadly gadgets and gizmos to go mess with him?
It amazes me how often these so called anti-gun people use guns through a public servant. These people are not even anti-gun, they are anti-human rights, pro-authoritarians, who point the guns of government at anyone who makes them uncomfortable.
Disgusting.
That's the story and so far, still just a story.
Post by: SCRUBS on August 13, 2014, 12:08:36 PM
Wait, wait....lemme get this straight.
Some hikers were bothered by the sight of one man with a gun, politely open carrying, so they called up a whole bunch of guys with guns, body armor, trained attack dogs, and a plethora of deadly and not-so-deadly gadgets and gizmos to go mess with him?
It amazes me how often these so called anti-gun people use guns through a public servant. These people are not even anti-gun, they are anti-human rights, pro-authoritarians, who point the guns of government at anyone who makes them uncomfortable.
It sounds like he was also kidnapped under duress.
Disgusting.
This is the newest tactic of the anti gunners. They call 911 and use law officers to harass anyone carrying a firearm. I`ve been hearing/reading about anti gunners bragging about doing this. They think it is funny.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 12:24:23 PM
Wait, wait....lemme get this straight.
Some hikers were bothered by the sight of one man with a gun, politely open carrying, so they called up a whole bunch of guys with guns, body armor, trained attack dogs, and a plethora of deadly and not-so-deadly gadgets and gizmos to go mess with him?
It amazes me how often these so called anti-gun people use guns through a public servant. These people are not even anti-gun, they are anti-human rights, pro-authoritarians, who point the guns of government at anyone who makes them uncomfortable.
It sounds like he was also kidnapped under duress.
Disgusting.
This is the newest tactic of the anti gunners. They call 911 and use law officers to harass anyone carrying a firearm. I`ve been hearing/reading about anti gunners bragging about doing this. They think it is funny.
If the police put up with that, they need new leadership. It should be common sense for the 911 dispatcher to ask a few questions. If the gun owner isn't threatening anyone, they should be reminding the idiot on the phone of our rights and let the police continue to do the things they really need to be doing. And, if this story is true (jury's still out), that department may be in for a lawsuit. Stepping on someone's 2nd Amendment rights would expose them to punitive damages, just as violating your 1st, 4th, or 5th would. More of this might be a good thing as long as the "carrier" properly presents himself. I think it would encourage the LE to stop babysitting people who are wasting their time.
Post by: Curly on August 13, 2014, 12:26:30 PM
By Google Maps it shows Mt. Pilchuck State Forest. So that would make it state managed.Was this on land managed by Washington State Parks?
I believe so, but am unsure. If so, county sheriffs would have jurisdiction, if that's your concern.
State managed as in DNR or state managed as in State Parks? :dunno: The difference would be guns are allowed on DNR land but not allowed on State Park land.
Post by: timberghost72 on August 13, 2014, 12:53:20 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on August 13, 2014, 12:54:39 PM
By Google Maps it shows Mt. Pilchuck State Forest. So that would make it state managed.Was this on land managed by Washington State Parks?
I believe so, but am unsure. If so, county sheriffs would have jurisdiction, if that's your concern.
State managed as in DNR or state managed as in State Parks? :dunno: The difference would be guns are allowed on DNR land but not allowed on State Park land.
You can't carry on State Park Land? Since when?
Post by: timberghost72 on August 13, 2014, 01:03:27 PM
I just got off of the phone with the Verlot Ranger Station/service center. I asked about this issue and the person I talked to said the WTA report was fairly accurate. I asked about what happened and she informed me that there was a man with an assault rifle and several hand guns on the trail. He was not threatening anyone and minding his own business. I asked if he was cited or arrested and she said no. I asked if he was escorted off the trail and asked to leave. She said yes he was asked to voluntarily leave. She then told me that is was legal to carry in NF and such (I think she thought I was an anti-gunner). The lady I talked to was very nice and forthcoming.
Post by: Curly on August 13, 2014, 01:13:24 PM
By Google Maps it shows Mt. Pilchuck State Forest. So that would make it state managed.Was this on land managed by Washington State Parks?
I believe so, but am unsure. If so, county sheriffs would have jurisdiction, if that's your concern.
State managed as in DNR or state managed as in State Parks? :dunno: The difference would be guns are allowed on DNR land but not allowed on State Park land.
You can't carry on State Park Land? Since when?
Well, you can't shoot on State Park land......i guess you could carry for protection.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:24:21 PM
By Google Maps it shows Mt. Pilchuck State Forest. So that would make it state managed.Was this on land managed by Washington State Parks?
I believe so, but am unsure. If so, county sheriffs would have jurisdiction, if that's your concern.
State managed as in DNR or state managed as in State Parks? :dunno: The difference would be guns are allowed on DNR land but not allowed on State Park land.
You can't carry on State Park Land? Since when?
Well, you can't shoot on State Park land......i guess you could carry for protection.
Shooting and carry are two different things. There's a sign at Lacamas Lake Park that reads something like "Firearms discharge prohibited".
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 01:27:28 PM
It's beginning to make more sense why people were concerned about this guy.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:31:36 PM
Why carry a bunch of guns in a place where it is illegal to shoot?
It's beginning to make more sense why people were concerned about this guy.
Really? So, self defense is no longer a reason to carry? I can't even believe you made that statement.
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 01:35:56 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:38:48 PM
I didn't realize until now that it was a state park. Normally, people don't walk around in state parks with guns. Do you?
Yes, I go everywhere with a gun. When it's someplace in the woods, it's usually open carry. Do you really go anywhere without one? That's kind of foolish, if so.
Post by: mfswallace on August 13, 2014, 01:42:02 PM
Why carry a bunch of guns in a place where it is illegal to shoot?Ridiculous
It's beginning to make more sense why people were concerned about this guy.
Really? So, self defense is no longer a reason to carry? I can't even believe you made that statement.
Protection from what :dunno: there wouldn't be any bears, cougars or wolves in the forests would there? :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 01:42:25 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 13, 2014, 01:45:41 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 01:53:29 PM
I bet you're smarter than that guy though, and you probably keep it somewhat inconspicuous if you're on a public place that is frequented by people who are intimidated by guns. Seems like common sense to me. :dunno:
The woods isn't Starbucks. I have no problem with someone carrying any legal firearm in the woods. I personally would be carrying my .45. But, I would be at a great disadvantage if there were a criminal with a long gun killing people. As fat as I am, it would take a lot of effort for me to finally sneak up close enough to kill him. I would succeed, however. The 2nd isn't about carrying only where you can shoot or where people are most comfortable with it. It's not about hunting. It's about your ability to protect yourself, plain and simple.
Post by: irishevox on August 13, 2014, 01:54:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 01:57:31 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on August 13, 2014, 02:02:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 02:03:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 02:09:40 PM
http://www.parks.wa.gov/548/Mount-Pilchuck
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 13, 2014, 02:24:29 PM
From 1957 to 1980, Washington State Parks administered a ski area here that was run by a concessionaire. The ski area closed in 1980 due to poor annual snow conditions.
Ski area was in the mountains own "rain shadow"
Post by: timberghost72 on August 13, 2014, 02:55:12 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 13, 2014, 08:04:42 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on August 13, 2014, 08:23:16 PM
Why carry a bunch of guns in a place where it is illegal to shoot?
It's beginning to make more sense why people were concerned about this guy.
I agree. A person carrying multiple firearms in a state park should send up some red flags. Might be innocent enough, but it is out of the norm and should at least be investigated.
Post by: grundy53 on August 13, 2014, 09:09:54 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 09:21:00 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on August 14, 2014, 06:39:51 AM
Post by: ballpark on August 14, 2014, 08:38:59 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 14, 2014, 01:44:45 PM
Update,
I just got off of the phone with the Verlot Ranger Station/service center. I asked about this issue and the person I talked to said the WTA report was fairly accurate. I asked about what happened and she informed me that there was a man with an assault rifle and several hand guns on the trail. He was not threatening anyone and minding his own business. I asked if he was cited or arrested and she said no. I asked if he was escorted off the trail and asked to leave. She said yes he was asked to voluntarily leave. She then told me that is was legal to carry in NF and such (I think she thought I was an anti-gunner). The lady I talked to was very nice and forthcoming.
I'm all for protecting ones' self, I'm all for guns, I'm all for open carry, concealed carry, hunting, shooting whatever else...but what on God's green earth does a guy need an assault rifle and "several" handguns for on a very popular, well travelled hiking trail?? If I saw that guy on a trail, I'd be alarmed too. When people are hiking with their children in the middle of the woods and a dude comes walking by you on a trail and he's armed like the zombie apocalypse is about to go down, what do you expect is going to happen?
This is the same stuff that is giving the pro-open carry crowd a bad name, like strapping an AR to your back and going to Starbucks.
That or the guy has a few screws loose.
This guy could have thought of about 673 other better places to take his guns for a walk.
Just my .02
Post by: csaaphill on August 14, 2014, 01:49:35 PM
To me it's not a stretch that people who are anti gun anti hunting will call cops sheriffs or whoever to make waves.
“SWATting” is the intentional practice of calling 911 and reporting someone committing a violent crime, in order to create an overwhelming police response (such as a SWAT team, which is how the term came about). We’ve discussed SWATting previously at Bearing Arms after radical left-wing talk show host Mike Malloy announced his intentions to SWAT open carriers in hopes of getting them shot:
I guess what I’ll do if I’m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I’ll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every g**-damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they’re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn’t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.
http://bearingarms.com/dayton-walmart-shooting-innocent-man-swatted-death/3/ (http://bearingarms.com/dayton-walmart-shooting-innocent-man-swatted-death/3/)
Post by: csaaphill on August 14, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
My guess is because it's still legal and he can and shouldn't mater how many guns a person has on his person. Once we do that then who knows how far people will take it.Update,
I just got off of the phone with the Verlot Ranger Station/service center. I asked about this issue and the person I talked to said the WTA report was fairly accurate. I asked about what happened and she informed me that there was a man with an assault rifle and several hand guns on the trail. He was not threatening anyone and minding his own business. I asked if he was cited or arrested and she said no. I asked if he was escorted off the trail and asked to leave. She said yes he was asked to voluntarily leave. She then told me that is was legal to carry in NF and such (I think she thought I was an anti-gunner). The lady I talked to was very nice and forthcoming.
I'm all for protecting ones' self, I'm all for guns, I'm all for open carry, concealed carry, hunting, shooting whatever else...but what on God's green earth does a guy need an assault rifle and "several" handguns for on a very popular, well travelled hiking trail?? If I saw that guy on a trail, I'd be alarmed too. When people are hiking with their children in the middle of the woods and a dude comes walking by you on a trail and he's armed like the zombie apocalypse is about to go down, what do you expect is going to happen?
This is the same stuff that is giving the pro-open carry crowd a bad name, like strapping an AR to your back and going to Starbucks.
That or the guy has a few screws loose.
This guy could have thought of about 673 other better places to take his guns for a walk.
Just my .02
I hate how people freak out over assault rifles just because they look like military issued weapons. They are just semi automatic rifles much like the 30-06 semi auto one might have or .22 caliber.
they have military austetics that's it stop trying to say its out there because someone carries one or two or three or what ever.
people need to stop being threatend by the site of a gun we already live in a gunaphobic country now don't need to throw more on the flames!
Post by: csaaphill on August 14, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
ya stop trying to limit us all the more and stop trying to throw out your values on people and making points where nonereally eixist nor should it. We all know how you people get this started is to throw outthiskind of crap then beofre you know it's law or some other kind of taboo. then before you know it those that don't care or want to change to your way of thinking we end up in jail or dead!Update,
I just got off of the phone with the Verlot Ranger Station/service center. I asked about this issue and the person I talked to said the WTA report was fairly accurate. I asked about what happened and she informed me that there was a man with an assault rifle and several hand guns on the trail. He was not threatening anyone and minding his own business. I asked if he was cited or arrested and she said no. I asked if he was escorted off the trail and asked to leave. She said yes he was asked to voluntarily leave. She then told me that is was legal to carry in NF and such (I think she thought I was an anti-gunner). The lady I talked to was very nice and forthcoming.
I'm all for protecting ones' self, I'm all for guns, I'm all for open carry, concealed carry, hunting, shooting whatever else...but what on God's green earth does a guy need an assault rifle and "several" handguns for on a very popular, well travelled hiking trail?? If I saw that guy on a trail, I'd be alarmed too. When people are hiking with their children in the middle of the woods and a dude comes walking by you on a trail and he's armed like the zombie apocalypse is about to go down, what do you expect is going to happen?
This is the same stuff that is giving the pro-open carry crowd a bad name, like strapping an AR to your back and going to Starbucks.
That or the guy has a few screws loose.
This guy could have thought of about 673 other better places to take his guns for a walk.
Just my .02
STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW!!!!!!!!!
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 02:56:59 PM
Post by: Curly on August 14, 2014, 03:01:09 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on August 14, 2014, 03:03:13 PM
So I did some inquiries to someone in the know. He was carrying a rifle and was within his legal rights to carry openly or concealed. To his knowledge the trail was never closed nor was anyone escorted off the mountain.I am trying to get a little bit more information from a LE I work with that patrols that area. What he told me is above.
Post by: Curly on August 14, 2014, 03:17:21 PM
I guess that is just the way it is now. Open carry an AR for protection and you can expect people to be scared of you and possibly call LE.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 03:21:37 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 14, 2014, 03:32:24 PM
Wait, wait....lemme get this straight.
Some hikers were bothered by the sight of one man with a gun, politely open carrying, so they called up a whole bunch of guys with guns, body armor, trained attack dogs, and a plethora of deadly and not-so-deadly gadgets and gizmos to go mess with him?
It amazes me how often these so called anti-gun people use guns through a public servant. These people are not even anti-gun, they are anti-human rights, pro-authoritarians, who point the guns of government at anyone who makes them uncomfortable.
It sounds like he was also kidnapped under duress.
Disgusting.
Hilarious! Love your comment.so true...
Post by: grundy53 on August 14, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
Even people on this thread are calling them assault rifles. :bash: MSRs - Modern Sporting Rifle is the term to use. I always tell people that an "assault rifle is a military-grade, fully automatic machine gun which is illegal for civilian use."
Well said! I completely agree. However just a little clarification. Fully automatic machine guns are not illegal for citizens to own. There are quite a few states where it is perfectly legal to own them as long as you have a class 3 tax stamp. Unfortunately our state isn't one of them :cryriver:.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 14, 2014, 03:41:20 PM
unless you had it prior to the state ban and were grandfathered inEven people on this thread are calling them assault rifles. :bash: MSRs - Modern Sporting Rifle is the term to use. I always tell people that an "assault rifle is a military-grade, fully automatic machine gun which is illegal for civilian use."
Well said! I completely agree. However just a little clarification. Fully automatic machine guns are not illegal for citizens to own. There are quite a few states where it is perfectly legal to own them as long as you have a class 3 tax stamp. Unfortunately our state isn't one of them :cryriver:.
Post by: Stein on August 14, 2014, 03:42:16 PM
The first thing you do if you want to get rid of something is divide it up, assign an evil name and go after one small segment at a time.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 03:50:26 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 14, 2014, 04:06:08 PM
ya stop trying to limit us all the more and stop trying to throw out your values on people and making points where nonereally eixist nor should it. We all know how you people get this started is to throw outthiskind of crap then beofre you know it's law or some other kind of taboo. then before you know it those that don't care or want to change to your way of thinking we end up in jail or dead!Update,
I just got off of the phone with the Verlot Ranger Station/service center. I asked about this issue and the person I talked to said the WTA report was fairly accurate. I asked about what happened and she informed me that there was a man with an assault rifle and several hand guns on the trail. He was not threatening anyone and minding his own business. I asked if he was cited or arrested and she said no. I asked if he was escorted off the trail and asked to leave. She said yes he was asked to voluntarily leave. She then told me that is was legal to carry in NF and such (I think she thought I was an anti-gunner). The lady I talked to was very nice and forthcoming.
I'm all for protecting ones' self, I'm all for guns, I'm all for open carry, concealed carry, hunting, shooting whatever else...but what on God's green earth does a guy need an assault rifle and "several" handguns for on a very popular, well travelled hiking trail?? If I saw that guy on a trail, I'd be alarmed too. When people are hiking with their children in the middle of the woods and a dude comes walking by you on a trail and he's armed like the zombie apocalypse is about to go down, what do you expect is going to happen?
This is the same stuff that is giving the pro-open carry crowd a bad name, like strapping an AR to your back and going to Starbucks.
That or the guy has a few screws loose.
This guy could have thought of about 673 other better places to take his guns for a walk.
Just my .02
STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW!!!!!!!!!
You might want to take a step back and reread what I said. Nowhere did I put my values out there. Not sure what kind of crap I'm throwing out there either. The guy is on a wildly popular hiking trail in western Washington carrying a MSR/assault rifle/semi-auto rifle/call it what you want and "several"(according to the lady at Verlot) handguns. It's going to raise red flags. I don't care if the guy was carrying a pre-64 model 70 and 3 Ruger Blackhawks. They're all guns and people who are not pro-gun are bound to freak out in that scenario. That, sir, is a fact regardless of what "values" you think I'm throwing out there. Unfortunately it's inherent in today's society.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 04:41:55 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 14, 2014, 04:47:44 PM
I'll wait to get the report before i make a judgement on how "overly-armed" this guy was. People who don't like guns, don't like any guns. Not my freakin' problem. It's completely theirs. I'm not even sure if I care whether he was dressed like Rambo, had three holsters and an AR with a suppressor. Those same people would've been bothered with a holstered Colt Peacemaker. They're making noise because they can cause trouble, period. I probably wouldn't have had more than one gun, but that's just me and the fact i don't want to carry that much weight around.
Agreed.
Post by: Bob33 on August 14, 2014, 05:41:27 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 05:59:59 PM
:yeah:It will be interesting to find out as to why. So far I have not heard anything to suggest he was up there for bad intentions. Just out walking his rifle :chuckle: I am up that mountain at least twice a year and always have a side arm on (not that I feel threatened there. It is a very high use trail)
I for one don't feel safe if I don't carry. It doesn't matter where or what I am doing. Only time I do not is if it is illegal to do so, courthouse, etc. I honestly feel the people who don't carry are the ones who are crazy. As the saying goes " I'd rather have it and not need it then to need it and not have it" I am not afraid or paranoid, just informed and aware.
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 07:11:13 PM
A person on public lands legally carrying a firearm or any firearms. Has not broken any law. He may be contacted by LE. But once determined he has violated any laws,should be left alone. (MWG call)
The mere fact that he has one or many legally carried firearms does not proved probable case of any crime in its self.
And you knew this was coming here is the cites:
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S.
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer
In a nut shell it has already been ruled in several cases that the carrying of a firearm MAY Cause Alarm, but the Alarm is Not Justified. Given there are no other circumstances or events.
On any given day in the woods I could be walking up a trail with a long gun, and two handguns. For no other reason than that's how I roll. I am pleasant to everyone I meet.
When someone comments about my guns in a negative way ,I simply wish them a good Day and move on.
Really unless a LE suspects you of a crime any contact should be nothing but a cordial greeting. Even more so on a trail or in the woods.
Game agents might have more questions.
My point. No one should be singled out or detained in any way simply for carrying a firearm on public forest lands outside of National Parks. :twocents:
I know I know you hates the cites. :sry:
Post by: bobcat on August 14, 2014, 07:52:44 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 07:59:51 PM
But open carry may not be allowed :dunno:
We are all open carriers when we hunt. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on August 14, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on August 14, 2014, 08:17:28 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on August 14, 2014, 08:29:04 PM
I'll wait to get the report before i make a judgement on how "overly-armed" this guy was. People who don't like guns, don't like any guns. Not my freakin' problem. It's completely theirs. I'm not even sure if I care whether he was dressed like Rambo, had three holsters and an AR with a suppressor. Those same people would've been bothered with a holstered Colt Peacemaker. They're making noise because they can cause trouble, period. I probably wouldn't have had more than one gun, but that's just me and the fact i don't want to carry that much weight around.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 08:33:25 PM
You can't hunt or shoot on land managed by Washington State Parks. Same as National Parks. :dunno:
Yes
But The topic was man carrying a firearm. So I am kinda staying close to that topic. :)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 14, 2014, 08:37:29 PM
You can't hunt or shoot on land managed by Washington State Parks. Same as National Parks. :dunno:there are some National Parks that allow hunting. One in Wyoming allows elk hunting.
Post by: Bob33 on August 14, 2014, 08:38:32 PM
Perfect arguments for "gun free" zones. A whack job carries an AK47 onto a school ground, and police can do nothing because "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
The mere fact that he has one or many legally carried firearms does not proved probable case of any crime in its self.
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S.
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer
In a nut shell it has already been ruled in several cases that the carrying of a firearm MAY Cause Alarm, but the Alarm is Not Justified. Given there are no other circumstances or events.
Post by: washelkhunter on August 14, 2014, 08:45:22 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on August 14, 2014, 09:22:54 PM
I'm available 8-24 for a pre-hunt training hike either at Beacon Rock St. Park or Dog Mtn. Bring bows, rifles and sidearms; no arrows or ammo of course except for your concealed carry, it'll be a good exercise of your legs, lungs and rights.
Me and the wife hiked up a trail archery deer hunting hear in the gorge last fall. Nobody at the trail head at o-dark thirty but boy howdy when coming back down at about 1pm another story. To this day I do believe if my wife a female carying her bow with arrows and me as well, is the only reason a law inforcement individual was not called to the trail head. If only me coming down I know it would have been a different story. There were license plates from several states to include wa, or, ca, nv, and ca. All of them with there eyes wide open in total disgust. I so wish the wife would have had the head and cape of the bucks we were after hanging over her shoulder. Would have been priceless.....
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 09:43:49 PM
Perfect arguments for "gun free" zones. A whack job carries an AK47 onto a school ground, and police can do nothing because "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
The mere fact that he has one or many legally carried firearms does not proved probable case of any crime in its self.
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S.
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer
In a nut shell it has already been ruled in several cases that the carrying of a firearm MAY Cause Alarm, but the Alarm is Not Justified. Given there are no other circumstances or events.
In Washington you cannot take firearms on to school grounds . It would be a violation .
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 09:54:31 PM
Does the the LE have any obligation or need to respond to a Man with a gun call if all the person is doing is carrying a gun while hiking a trail?
Not a crime in this state and many others. Thus no reason to investigate.
Without other facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude a crime was committed. :dunno:
We go down a slippery slope when we are willing to allow constitutional infringements on some random persons fear of what might happen.
Something we should all consider. Because at some point we may all be a victim of some persons unfounded personal fears.
Post by: bigtex on August 14, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
The issues of guns on National Park Service lands has changed in the past 4 years or so. Until about 4 years ago guns on NPS lands were a no-go, unless you were legally hunting on NPS lands that are open to hunting (such as Lake Roosevelt).You can't hunt or shoot on land managed by Washington State Parks. Same as National Parks. :dunno:there are some National Parks that allow hunting. One in Wyoming allows elk hunting.
About 4 years ago Congress changed the law for NPS and US Fish and Wildlife lands to mirror state gun laws. So if a state allows open carry, then you can open carry in the park.
National Parks LE can't do anything as long as you are not violating the state firearm laws. Of course, you still can't bring a firearm into a federal building (such as a visitor center.)
And Jimmy is correct, there are some "National Parks" that have legal wildlife management/control hunts.
Post by: KFhunter on August 14, 2014, 10:03:32 PM
The dude was causing a disturbance of sorts, and asked to leave voluntarily which he did. I can't find any rights violated.
He could have hung a dozen pink pickles off his jacket causing a disturbance and thus asked to leave "voluntarily", the guns are irrelevant. Nothing illegal about a dozen pink pickles..
It was out of place and out of the ordinary = cops called.
Post by: ghosthunter on August 14, 2014, 10:09:42 PM
Sounds to me like all went well, a non-story.
The dude was causing a disturbance of sorts, and asked to leave voluntarily which he did. I can't find any rights violated.
He could have hung a dozen pink pickles off his jacket causing a disturbance and thus asked to leave "voluntarily", the guns are irrelevant. Nothing illegal about a dozen pink pickles..
It was out of place and out of the ordinary = cops called.
We have not seen any evidence in this thread that he caused a disturbance?
Or any official evidence that he had more than a couple guns.
I guess my point is, if this even happen. There was no reason to escort him any where.
They saw no threat because he was not arrested, thus leave him alone.
Post by: csaaphill on August 15, 2014, 12:58:03 AM
Sounds to me like all went well, a non-story.:yeah:
The dude was causing a disturbance of sorts, and asked to leave voluntarily which he did. I can't find any rights violated.
He could have hung a dozen pink pickles off his jacket causing a disturbance and thus asked to leave "voluntarily", the guns are irrelevant. Nothing illegal about a dozen pink pickles..
It was out of place and out of the ordinary = cops called.
exactly! leave him alone. Looks to me like people are trying change the way people might go and do something force evolution or something not sure but don't wnt to get shot because I don't follow the in crowd.
We have not seen any evidence in this thread that he caused a disturbance?
Or any official evidence that he had more than a couple guns.
I guess my point is, if this even happen. There was no reason to escort him any where.
They saw no threat because he was not arrested, thus leave him alone.
Post by: csaaphill on August 15, 2014, 01:02:25 AM
it happens and you know if your old to to know if not you will learn it is. soon what you like to do you wont beable to at least not without someone making a big deal out of it and could get cops called on you even if not illegal yet! that's my Point!ya stop trying to limit us all the more and stop trying to throw out your values on people and making points where nonereally eixist nor should it. We all know how you people get this started is to throw outthiskind of crap then beofre you know it's law or some other kind of taboo. then before you know it those that don't care or want to change to your way of thinking we end up in jail or dead!Update,
I just got off of the phone with the Verlot Ranger Station/service center. I asked about this issue and the person I talked to said the WTA report was fairly accurate. I asked about what happened and she informed me that there was a man with an assault rifle and several hand guns on the trail. He was not threatening anyone and minding his own business. I asked if he was cited or arrested and she said no. I asked if he was escorted off the trail and asked to leave. She said yes he was asked to voluntarily leave. She then told me that is was legal to carry in NF and such (I think she thought I was an anti-gunner). The lady I talked to was very nice and forthcoming.
I'm all for protecting ones' self, I'm all for guns, I'm all for open carry, concealed carry, hunting, shooting whatever else...but what on God's green earth does a guy need an assault rifle and "several" handguns for on a very popular, well travelled hiking trail?? If I saw that guy on a trail, I'd be alarmed too. When people are hiking with their children in the middle of the woods and a dude comes walking by you on a trail and he's armed like the zombie apocalypse is about to go down, what do you expect is going to happen?
This is the same stuff that is giving the pro-open carry crowd a bad name, like strapping an AR to your back and going to Starbucks.
That or the guy has a few screws loose.
This guy could have thought of about 673 other better places to take his guns for a walk.
Just my .02
STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW!!!!!!!!!
You might want to take a step back and reread what I said. Nowhere did I put my values out there. Not sure what kind of crap I'm throwing out there either. The guy is on a wildly popular hiking trail in western Washington carrying a MSR/assault rifle/semi-auto rifle/call it what you want and "several"(according to the lady at Verlot) handguns. It's going to raise red flags. I don't care if the guy was carrying a pre-64 model 70 and 3 Ruger Blackhawks. They're all guns and people who are not pro-gun are bound to freak out in that scenario. That, sir, is a fact regardless of what "values" you think I'm throwing out there. Unfortunately it's inherent in today's society.
it's called making issues where non exist or where none should exist at least if you want to keep your rights that is.
Post by: csaaphill on August 15, 2014, 01:21:07 AM
Meaning you cudl be doing nothing but carrying a old fashined smoke pole and they will still call the cops and say your menacing.
at some point were going to have to say you know what I'm not moving and if you want me to leave you will have to arrest me or use force. I mean the guy wasnt breaking any laws but asked to leave on his own accord he gave in and maybe shouldn't have for that gives them the upper hand when it's someone elses turn out there! :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on August 15, 2014, 07:55:18 AM
But folks who. Make up stuff waste everyone's time.
I wish there was a way to file a reverse complaint against the reporting party, if they made stuff up.
Turn it back on them. Lots of folks like to stay anonymous and don't have the guts for the face to face.
I guess another go reason for GoPro cameras. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2014, 08:19:24 AM
- Cutting in front of someone in the checkout line, “just because you can.”
- Driving the speed limit in the left lane during heavy traffic, “just because you can.”
- Zipping ahead of everyone in the merge lane to get in front of others, "just because you can."
- Calling someone an a hole to his face, “just because you can.”
- Driving down 4th Avenue in Seattle with a dead deer on the hood, “just because you can.”
- Blatant open carry in Starbucks, “just because you can.” Make that “just because you could.”
I fully support someone’s right to carry firearms, but also expect firearms owners to understand that the messages they send by their behavior can have adverse consequences for other firearms owners.
The details in this instance are not clear. The hiker may have been doing nothing wrong or inappropriate. :twocents:
Post by: BNAElkhntr on August 15, 2014, 08:22:37 AM
Remind me of My Self and a Buddy about 30 years ago Up above Denny Creek On the Pacific Crest We were hunting Bears Lawfully when a bunch of Hikers rounded a corner and saw us walking toward them with rifles the were a little freaked asked us why we had guns told them Bear Hunting They were more freaked there were Bears Different Times
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 08:31:44 AM
Excuse me for my Ignorance Was this a closed area for Hunting? Did he posses a Hunting License and a Bear Tag?
Remind me of My Self and a Buddy about 30 years ago Up above Denny Creek On the Pacific Crest We were hunting Bears Lawfully when a bunch of Hikers rounded a corner and saw us walking toward them with rifles the were a little freaked asked us why we had guns told them Bear Hunting They were more freaked there were Bears Different Times
No, he was not hunting.
Post by: Russ McDonald on August 15, 2014, 08:35:56 AM
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2014, 09:43:08 AM
911: Hello, 911. What's your emergency?
Caller: There is a man hiking on a mountain trail with a rifle, and I'm scared.
911: Has the man threatened you?
Caller: No, but he is scary. He is wearing camo and has an assault rifle. I didn't like the look in his eyes. :o
911: Ok, help is on the way.
:dunno:
Post by: jackelope on August 15, 2014, 10:48:07 AM
Another question in keeping with the OP.
Does the the LE have any obligation or need to respond to a Man with a gun call if all the person is doing is carrying a gun while hiking a trail?
Not a crime in this state and many others. Thus no reason to investigate.
Without other facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude a crime was committed. :dunno:
We go down a slippery slope when we are willing to allow constitutional infringements on some random persons fear of what might happen.
Something we should all consider. Because at some point we may all be a victim of some persons unfounded personal fears.
i totally understand that no laws were broken.
Just for the sake of discussion, where does one draw the line? Just throwing a scenario out there in hopes of hearing some opinions.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that this guy had a rifle slung across his back and 3 handguns....(only because the lady at Verlot Ranger Station said he had several handguns) Where does Mom and Dad hiking their 2.5 kids and their dog draw the line and say...holy crap, police...there's a guy with 4 guns walking around in camo looking like a crazy person? Where does Dad(non-gun owner) draw the line and make the correct/incorrect decision about whether to call police? Does he wait for the shooting to start or does he just blow it off since the guy wasn't breaking any laws??
Disclaimer....
This is not a challenge to anyone's thinking on this topic. I'm genuinely curious as to how folks would react to this scenario, so be honest.
Thank you.
Post by: Woodchuck on August 15, 2014, 11:01:42 AM
If you go out obviously looking to get attention, don't get cranky when you get it.
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2014, 11:02:48 AM
1. Guy walks around with rifle and one or more pistols.
2. Someone gets scared and calls LEO.
3. LEO responds, finds no crime but asks the guy to voluntarily leave.
4. Guy leaves.
Would I have called LEO? Depends on what the demeanor of the guy was. A guy with four guns really isn't any more dangerous to me than a guy with one gun so the question really is would I call the cops on a citizen with a gun? Again, not unless I feared for my safety or others. Same answer as a guy with a crowbar, knife, ninja stars or whatever.
Post by: ghosthunter on August 15, 2014, 11:39:56 AM
:yeah: Just because you "can" do something does not always make it a good idea to do it. :twocents:
If you go out obviously looking to get attention, don't get cranky when you get it.
This guy did nothing half the folks on this forum have not done.
Where do you get he wanted attention.?
He went up a trail to enjoy the company of his guns. Nothing wrong with that.
And just because someone doesn't like your chosen activity is no reason not to do it.
People got to stop seeing the boggy man around every corner.
Walk on mind your own business. Geez.
Post by: Woodchuck on August 15, 2014, 11:50:53 AM
People who are possibly on the fence on gun rights and go out and see something like this could easily be pushed to the wrong side of the fence. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2014, 11:57:30 AM
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html)
Mystery in the Mountains
By Alex Tresniowski
With Few Clues and No Suspects, the Murder of Mary Cooper and Her Daughter Susanna Stodden on a Popular Hiking Trail Shocks Seattle
They had a plan for the perfect day—hike a trail on Mount Pilchuck, spot lots of birds and keep going until their feet gave out. But what really made July 11 special for Mary Cooper, 56, and her daughter Susanna Stodden, 27—both huge nature lovers—was the chance to spend it together. "Susanna probably hikes once a week but Mary is pretty busy during the year," says Mary's husband, David Stodden, 57. "So I remember how happy Mary was that morning when she left to go on the hike."
Only hours later both women were dead, shot and killed on a popular trail in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington State. A hiker recalled seeing them on the trail at 10 that morning; another came across their bodies around 2:30 p.m. and called police. Investigators say that robbery was apparently not a motive—Cooper's 1997 Dodge Caravan was found where she parked it at the trailhead—and are looking into several scenarios. One is that the killer may have been a crystal meth addict (the nearby town of Granite Falls has had so many drug problems it's been called Methville); another is that the murders may somehow be linked to the shooting of two Oregon hikers one year earlier. So far, though, police have no major clues or compelling leads. "Our goal is to catch a killer," says Snohomish County sheriff spokesman Rich Niebusch, "and to make them answer for what they've done."
...
Post by: SCRUBS on August 15, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
How many remember this story from 2006?
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html)
Mystery in the Mountains
By Alex Tresniowski
With Few Clues and No Suspects, the Murder of Mary Cooper and Her Daughter Susanna Stodden on a Popular Hiking Trail Shocks Seattle
They had a plan for the perfect day—hike a trail on Mount Pilchuck, spot lots of birds and keep going until their feet gave out. But what really made July 11 special for Mary Cooper, 56, and her daughter Susanna Stodden, 27—both huge nature lovers—was the chance to spend it together. "Susanna probably hikes once a week but Mary is pretty busy during the year," says Mary's husband, David Stodden, 57. "So I remember how happy Mary was that morning when she left to go on the hike."
Only hours later both women were dead, shot and killed on a popular trail in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington State. A hiker recalled seeing them on the trail at 10 that morning; another came across their bodies around 2:30 p.m. and called police. Investigators say that robbery was apparently not a motive—Cooper's 1997 Dodge Caravan was found where she parked it at the trailhead—and are looking into several scenarios. One is that the killer may have been a crystal meth addict (the nearby town of Granite Falls has had so many drug problems it's been called Methville); another is that the murders may somehow be linked to the shooting of two Oregon hikers one year earlier. So far, though, police have no major clues or compelling leads. "Our goal is to catch a killer," says Snohomish County sheriff spokesman Rich Niebusch, "and to make them answer for what they've done."
...
Good point Bob! All the more reason for him to be carrying his guns.
Post by: Bob33 on August 15, 2014, 12:25:57 PM
Now, now, you got to "stop seeing the boggy man around every corner.". ;)How many remember this story from 2006?
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html)
Mystery in the Mountains
By Alex Tresniowski
With Few Clues and No Suspects, the Murder of Mary Cooper and Her Daughter Susanna Stodden on a Popular Hiking Trail Shocks Seattle
They had a plan for the perfect day—hike a trail on Mount Pilchuck, spot lots of birds and keep going until their feet gave out. But what really made July 11 special for Mary Cooper, 56, and her daughter Susanna Stodden, 27—both huge nature lovers—was the chance to spend it together. "Susanna probably hikes once a week but Mary is pretty busy during the year," says Mary's husband, David Stodden, 57. "So I remember how happy Mary was that morning when she left to go on the hike."
Only hours later both women were dead, shot and killed on a popular trail in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington State. A hiker recalled seeing them on the trail at 10 that morning; another came across their bodies around 2:30 p.m. and called police. Investigators say that robbery was apparently not a motive—Cooper's 1997 Dodge Caravan was found where she parked it at the trailhead—and are looking into several scenarios. One is that the killer may have been a crystal meth addict (the nearby town of Granite Falls has had so many drug problems it's been called Methville); another is that the murders may somehow be linked to the shooting of two Oregon hikers one year earlier. So far, though, police have no major clues or compelling leads. "Our goal is to catch a killer," says Snohomish County sheriff spokesman Rich Niebusch, "and to make them answer for what they've done."
...
Good point Bob! All the more reason for him to be carrying his guns.
Post by: grundy53 on August 15, 2014, 12:41:14 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: 300rum on August 15, 2014, 12:42:31 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on August 15, 2014, 12:50:21 PM
It is spooky up on that trail knowing what happened. Especially when you see the memorial.
It would be nice to have clarification on what "several handguns" really means. Or was somebody exaggerating.
Post by: SCRUBS on August 15, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
Now, now, you got to "stop seeing the boggy man around every corner.". ;)How many remember this story from 2006?
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061488,00.html)
Mystery in the Mountains
By Alex Tresniowski
With Few Clues and No Suspects, the Murder of Mary Cooper and Her Daughter Susanna Stodden on a Popular Hiking Trail Shocks Seattle
They had a plan for the perfect day—hike a trail on Mount Pilchuck, spot lots of birds and keep going until their feet gave out. But what really made July 11 special for Mary Cooper, 56, and her daughter Susanna Stodden, 27—both huge nature lovers—was the chance to spend it together. "Susanna probably hikes once a week but Mary is pretty busy during the year," says Mary's husband, David Stodden, 57. "So I remember how happy Mary was that morning when she left to go on the hike."
Only hours later both women were dead, shot and killed on a popular trail in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington State. A hiker recalled seeing them on the trail at 10 that morning; another came across their bodies around 2:30 p.m. and called police. Investigators say that robbery was apparently not a motive—Cooper's 1997 Dodge Caravan was found where she parked it at the trailhead—and are looking into several scenarios. One is that the killer may have been a crystal meth addict (the nearby town of Granite Falls has had so many drug problems it's been called Methville); another is that the murders may somehow be linked to the shooting of two Oregon hikers one year earlier. So far, though, police have no major clues or compelling leads. "Our goal is to catch a killer," says Snohomish County sheriff spokesman Rich Niebusch, "and to make them answer for what they've done."
...
Good point Bob! All the more reason for him to be carrying his guns.
Nothing like the pot calling kettle black...... :tup:
Post by: timberghost72 on August 15, 2014, 01:00:39 PM
I remember that story. I wouldn't go anywhere near granite falls unarmed....
sent from my typewriter
Hey now, we're not all bad :chuckle:
Last year I ran into a few shady types while out on Spring Bear hunt. They were in a vehicle on a gated road. I did feel very nervous then.
Post by: grundy53 on August 15, 2014, 01:26:53 PM
I'm not talking about the majority of fine upstanding granite falls citizens. I'm talking about the tweakers.I remember that story. I wouldn't go anywhere near granite falls unarmed....
sent from my typewriter
Hey now, we're not all bad :chuckle:
Last year I ran into a few shady types while out on Spring Bear hunt. They were in a vehicle on a gated road. I did feel very nervous then.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 02:31:17 PM
I remember that story. I wouldn't go anywhere near granite fallsunarmed....
sent from my typewriter
fixed it for you! :tup:
Post by: csaaphill on August 15, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
I'm just curious how the call to authorities went (was it a 911 call?)? Could have been like this:
911: Hello, 911. What's your emergency?
Caller: There is a man hiking on a mountain trail with a rifle, and I'm scared.
911: Has the man threatened you?
Caller: No, but he is scary. He is wearing camo and has an assault rifle. I didn't like the look in his eyes. :o
911: Ok, help is on the way.
:dunno:
:yeah:
ya more than likely true too in today's society ya!
Post by: elk247 on August 15, 2014, 09:00:10 PM
Monroe and sultan are worse. It's so bad I won't even hunt or fish there anymore because they will break into your rig when you get out of sight. Bottom line is take your gun everywhere. The woods, country and city all have predators of some sort. Is your family or life worth the chance? I know it's not so stay strapped and keep a level head.I'm not talking about the majority of fine upstanding granite falls citizens. I'm talking about the tweakers.I remember that story. I wouldn't go anywhere near granite falls unarmed....
sent from my typewriter
Hey now, we're not all bad :chuckle:
Last year I ran into a few shady types while out on Spring Bear hunt. They were in a vehicle on a gated road. I did feel very nervous then.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: sakoshooter on August 15, 2014, 10:20:16 PM
The trail was closed, so how can you say he wasn't breaking any laws? Maybe that's why he was escorted off?
The trail was closed after he left the trailhead. Closed because of him/gun. He did nothing wrong and should file suite.
If you read all the way to the end you'd see where a guy tried starting a fire up there. Did the law do anything about that? Did they close the parking lot to stupid people so no one starts a forest fire?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 15, 2014, 10:20:18 PM