I don't open carry in Washington. If you read the statute you may find it ambiguous. I asked the WA state patrol, and the answering party said it would get me arrested and gun seized. Whitman County Sheriff (eastern WA) said no problem. A location issue, and whether any of the sheep complain.
It is NOT ambiguous. It says, in short, you cannot Brandish, unless on your own property or place of business. Open carry IS NOT brandishing.
He should win a HUGE settlement.
I am sickened each time I read one of these stories about Cops arresting or even harassing someone for doing something perfectly legal...especially when the action is Constitutionally protected.
If you see average Joe walking down the street, and Joe happens to be carrying his side-arm on his hip, and it is perfectly legal to do so, and Joe is harming no one, and Joe is threatening to harm no one...
Leave him the F*** alone!
Hmmmm, a man having a right to go about his business unmolested...
How disappointing. I got my first concealed weapons permit in Vancouver, WA and they were extremely nice and supportive during the process - no delays or snide remarks like I've heard so many others experience around the country.
Vancouver is a decently conservative community right on the WA/OR border, one mile away from liberal-paradise Portland, OR. I imagine there would be a decent amount of community support in favor of this guy, though it might be drowned out if Portlanders get word and cross the bridge.
I know this is a stale thread, but here is the Revised Code of Washington (RCW):
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 and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(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 such 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 force by a third person;
\End of Legal BS
Anyway I agree it is legal, but note in my original comment what the WA State Patrol said to me. Also note the phrase "...warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." All that takes is someone to claim that they are scared or alarmed, and it may violate the RCW cited. There have been several arrests throughout the state based on just this issue.
"All that takes is someone to claim that they are scared or alarmed..."
Nope... "reasonable person" standard applies. Plus, you are talking about a constitutionally (state and feral) protected right. Much higher standards apply in those cases... as in, what manner could this person otherwise exercised their right to bear arms or is the law an infringement upon the right to bear arms. If other manners have already been deemed illegal or infringed upon, this law can't take away the only manner to bear arms the person has left.
This is NOT how the law should be read, but it is how judges have read it to be. Infringement is ok up to the point of completely outlawing the right, (this is why DC lost against Heller).
This means, even if a reasonable person was alarmed for their safety, if there were no other means to bear arms besides open carry(*), it would still be legal to do so.
(*) Such as not having your permission slip to conceal your handgun.
Several arrests??? I know of one, person walking his dog with an AK type rifle slung over his shoulder in suburbs of Seattle. You know of several? Because cops arrest on a whim these days that doesn't mean much, but how many of those "several" were convicted?
I don't open carry in Washington. If you read the statute you may find it ambiguous. I asked the WA state patrol, and the answering party said it would get me arrested and gun seized. Whitman County Sheriff (eastern WA) said no problem. A location issue, and whether any of the sheep complain.
ReplyDeleteI'm too much of a wimp to be a test case.
If he can't win 100%,it's not the right case to get behind.
ReplyDeleteCould be messy,might push "fencers" to the wrong side.
I'm scared. His motives are wrong.
I don't live there,doesn't effect me.
I love Blue Buttons......
It is NOT ambiguous. It says, in short, you cannot Brandish, unless on your own property or place of business. Open carry IS NOT brandishing.
ReplyDeleteHe should win a HUGE settlement.
I am sickened each time I read one of these stories about Cops arresting or even harassing someone for doing something perfectly legal...especially when the action is Constitutionally protected.
Longbow
Hey Johnny Law,
ReplyDeleteIf you see average Joe walking down the street, and Joe happens to be carrying his side-arm on his hip, and it is perfectly legal to do so, and Joe is harming no one, and Joe is threatening to harm no one...
Leave him the F*** alone!
Hmmmm, a man having a right to go about his business unmolested...
What a concept!
Longbow
How disappointing. I got my first concealed weapons permit in Vancouver, WA and they were extremely nice and supportive during the process - no delays or snide remarks like I've heard so many others experience around the country.
ReplyDeleteVancouver is a decently conservative community right on the WA/OR border, one mile away from liberal-paradise Portland, OR. I imagine there would be a decent amount of community support in favor of this guy, though it might be drowned out if Portlanders get word and cross the bridge.
There is another option. He might try hiding in a spider hole to avoid legal responsibility and public scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteIt works for Greg Nickels, doesn't it?
I know this is a stale thread, but here is the Revised Code of Washington (RCW):
ReplyDeleteRCW 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 and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(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 such 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 force by a third person;
\End of Legal BS
Anyway I agree it is legal, but note in my original comment what the WA State Patrol said to me. Also note the phrase "...warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." All that takes is someone to claim that they are scared or alarmed, and it may violate the RCW cited. There have been several arrests throughout the state based on just this issue.
"All that takes is someone to claim that they are scared or alarmed..."
ReplyDeleteNope... "reasonable person" standard applies. Plus, you are talking about a constitutionally (state and feral) protected right. Much higher standards apply in those cases... as in, what manner could this person otherwise exercised their right to bear arms or is the law an infringement upon the right to bear arms. If other manners have already been deemed illegal or infringed upon, this law can't take away the only manner to bear arms the person has left.
This is NOT how the law should be read, but it is how judges have read it to be. Infringement is ok up to the point of completely outlawing the right, (this is why DC lost against Heller).
This means, even if a reasonable person was alarmed for their safety, if there were no other means to bear arms besides open carry(*), it would still be legal to do so.
(*) Such as not having your permission slip to conceal your handgun.
Several arrests??? I know of one, person walking his dog with an AK type rifle slung over his shoulder in suburbs of Seattle. You know of several? Because cops arrest on a whim these days that doesn't mean much, but how many of those "several" were convicted?