Can you carry a long gun in your yard in the city?

[Good&Fruity]

Let's say you live in the suburbs of a city. In this example, Washington state. Can you walk outside in your yard carrying a rifle? What about confront a trespasser in your yard with a long gun? Or would it be considered brandishing in any way?

Open carry is legal in WA, for rifles and handguns, though the law is written such that if it 'causes alarm for the safety of others' then it becomes illegal. So if someone calls in and say's they're a scared little girl, then it's illegal. But that's on a public street. What about on your own property?

 

[MedWheeler]

Technically, yes, in my city. Just not a good idea for the reasons apparent. As to confronting a would-be felony in progress, I'd see no legal problem, but I would not want to deal with the hassle that would be likely should I just decide to stroll around my city-limits yard with my trusty thunderstick over my shoulder.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Depends on the city. The "right" thing varies from place to place.

 

[shiftyer1]

I'm not sure if u can or not, but if you start carrying a long gun around the yard on a regular basis you probably won't get invited to the block party.

20 years ago I walked through my hometown on a regular basis with a shotgun or rifle and nobody batted an eye. I bet if a kid did it today they'd call the swat team!

 

[TexasBill]

I'm not sure if u can or not, but if you start carrying a long gun around the yard on a regular basis you probably won't get invited to the block party.

20 years ago I walked through my hometown on a regular basis with a shotgun or rifle and nobody batted an eye. I bet if a kid did it today they'd call the swat team!

Just don't do it on a school, college or university campus or other prohibited area (including an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages) and you should be okay. Texas state law doesn't have a lot to say about carrying a long gun.

I would also advise carrying it slung over your shoulder. Port arms might occasion a chat with the local law as to your intentions.

And no bayonets - they're guaranteed to get you picked up for UCA.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Good&Fruity: What about confront a trespasser [in Washington State] in your yard with a long gun?

Bad idea all around.

First, you may ask the trespasser to leave, or if necessary you may call the police to handle trespass. You may not use force or the threat of force in your state or most others. You may not put the trespasser in apprehension of harm. Carrying a long gun in your yard when you confront him is likely to do that.

Second, you stand the chance of being shot by someone who may believe that you are presenting an imminent threat of serious harm to the trespasser.

 

[TexasRifleman]

you may not use force or the threat of force in your state or most others.

Yep. I don't know of ANY state that allows the use of deadly force for trespassing.

 

[NavyLCDR]

though the law is written such that if it 'causes alarm for the safety of others' then it becomes illegal. So if someone calls in and say's they're a scared little girl, then it's illegal. But that's on a public street

You need to read Washington state law carefully. What you posted is NOT what Washington state law (RCW 9.41.270) says at all. Also, RCW 9.41.270 makes a specific exception that it does not apply in your own house or business, but it does apply on your property outside your house.

Aw, hell, let's just put it up here to remove all doubts:

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;

(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.

In addition, in Washington state, municipalities (cities and counties) are prohibited by state law from making their own ordinances regarding carrying and possession of firearms that are more restrictive than state laws. They can regulate the discharge of firearms, but not carrying and possession. So state law applies uniformily regardless of if you are in the county or in the middle of downtown shopping distict in Seattle. That's in RCW 9.41.290.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Welcome to Washington state:

 

[Kleanbore]

In Washington State, as in many jurisdictions, there are two categories of laws that come into play when doing something such as confronting a trespasser with gun in hand: the first has to do with weapons offenses, outlined in the code section cited by NavyLT; the second has to do with the the laws that address the use or threat of force, deadly or otherwise. Laws that address "brandishing", or "exhibiting a weapon unlawfully", and so forth, as well as those that have to do with open and concealed carry, fall into the first category. The second category brings in offenses such as assault.

In a few jurisdictions, force, but not deadly force, may be used when necessary to terminate trespass. In others, force may not be used at all. In at least two states, the threat of deadly force is now lawful under some circumstances if force is justified, but in most, producing a weapon is only lawful if deadly force is justified.

Earlier this year, a law abiding citizen confronted a trespasser on his rural property in New Hampshire while holding a gun in his hand. He was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. The case went all the way to the state supreme court, and he lost on appeal at each stage.

It is essential to know and understand the law in the jurisdiction in question, and that means more than the code per se. Case law is at least as important.

A general rule? Here are three simple things that I think are worth keeping in mind: (1) do not draw a firearm or point one at anyone else unless you have a very good reason that has to do with defense against imminent, serious harm*; (2) remember that the phrase "on my property" doesn't mean much, if anything, (except in one state, and only under certain limited circumstances) when it comes to the threat or use of deadly force; and (3) refrain from threatening trespassers with anything unless you know that what you are doing and have no alternative.

Some or all of these may be counter to what many people have led themselves to believe over the years. The time to correct one's impressions is before one has gotten crossways with the law.

*This may include preventing a forcible felony, where the threat of harm is legally presumed.​

 

[NavyLCDR]

One of the advatages of open carry of a handgun in a holster, where allowed by law. The subject will know that I armed, however my wearing of the gun openly in a holster is a legal activity in Washington state and does not constitute using any force or threat of intimidation by itself. There are plently of people who know me that can attest to the fact that I open carry just about everywhere.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Yep. I don't know of ANY state that allows the use of deadly force for trespassing.

Who said anything about using deadly force? I didn't say I wanted to go shoot the trespasser with a shotgun. I asked about going to ask them to leave, with a weapon on my person, in this case a shotgun, so that I may defend myself if the need arises. How is that any different than open carrying a handgun in a holster to ask a trespasser to leave my property? Has nothing to do with deadly force. Has to do with having a weapon on my person to defend myself should the trespasser try to cause grave bodily injury or death. Considering it's my property, I would want the best weapon I can have to defend myself in such a situation. In this case a shotgun trumps a pistol.

 

[Sam1911]

I asked about going to ask them to leave, with a weapon on my person,

Sure. But, did you read this?

Earlier this year, a law abiding citizen confronted a trespasser on his rural property in New Hampshire while holding a gun in his hand. He was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. The case went all the way to the state supreme court, and he lost on appeal at each stage.

If the prosecutor believes, or feels they can make a case that you were holding that shotgun for the purposes of threatening (scaring off?) someone, that may rise to the level of an assault. If there was no legal justification for killing or assaulting that person (i.e.: a threat of immediate grave bodily injury or death), then the "assault" by threatening them with a gun, even one you're just conspicuously holding, won't be legally justified, either.

Just standing in your yard holding your shotgun is one thing, and may be perfectly legal. Going out to evict a trespasser and bringing your shotgun along to show them you mean business is another matter altogether.

Your local authorities may say nothing at all to you. Or they may arrest you for assault and put you in court to defend your actions or face jail time. Hard to say which.

This is a good thing to avoid.

 

[Good&Fruity]

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.

I've read the law, in fact, I discussed it with the legislature almost a decade ago, because many people seem to stop halfway through the sentence and don't seem to understand it, as is the case here. You need to read the whole sentence in that statute, not just half of it. Many people mistakenly think that the items in that section are illegal, they are not in and of themselves. I've had numerous people at gun shops try to tell me that carrying a baton is illegal (just like they tell me a folding stock on a pump action shotgun is illegal), it is not. The law states that doing X, Y, and Z is illegal IF it is"..., 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." just like I said in my OP.

I've actually confirmed this with the legislature. You can do all of those things as long as it is not done "...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."

Carrying a shotgun into my yard to ask a trespasser isn't designed to intimidate them, it's designed for my personal safety, just as carrying a gun on my hip in such a situation openly would be. Given the choice between choosing a handgun to defend myself or a shotgun, I would pick the shotgun. And again, I have no idea why some people here said I can't use deadly force to get rid of a trespasser. That wasn't the question.

 

[Sam1911]

Carrying a shotugn into my yard to ask a trespasser isn't designed to intimidate them,

That may be absolutely true. But your opinion about it won't be the one that really matters if a prosecutor believes you crossed the line into armed intimidation of said trespasser.

And again, I have no idea why some people here said I can't use deadly force to get rid of a trespasser. That wasn't the question.

Precisely because intimidation with a "brandished" or overtly carried weapon may indeed rise to the level of an assault in the eyes of the law. To threaten someone with a gun, you must be in a position where there is a clear, definable, immediate threat of deadly violence to which you are responding, just as there would have to be if you were to shoot them, kick them, punch them, or otherwise assault them. The fact that you didn't really mean for your weapon to threaten them won't matter much if that is the charge pressed on you.

If you go out to confront a trespasser with a shotgun in your hands, you are sending a message. You may claim, and even believe, that you are not, but no one else is going to believe it. Sending that message by holding that shotgun is very probably an illegal act, whether you claim to intend it or not.

 

[Good&Fruity]

NavyLT, what's with that pic? Are you part of the governors volunteer security detail (kidding)? Was this an open carry outing? lol Can't just post a pic like that and leave us hanging. I notice no mags in the guns. Do tell...any hassle?

 

[Good&Fruity]

To threaten someone with a gun, you must be in a position where there is a clear, definable, immediate threat of deadly violence to which you are responding, just as there would have to be if you were to shoot them, kick them, punch them, or otherwise assault them. The fact that you didn't really mean for your weapon to threaten them won't matter much if that is the charge pressed on you.

So now we've moved from shooting the trespasser, to threatening them with it. Never said anything about threatening them with anything, anymore than I said anything about shooting them with anything. What I'm asking is if it is illegal to 1) carry a long gun in my yard in general 2) carry one to ask a trespasser to leave. Let's say for example, slung over my shoulder. Nothing threatening about that. Just armed to protect my self SHOULD the trespasser try to attack me. Never said anything about pointing it at them, threatening them with it, or shooting them.

I guess it really can't be brandishing since I'm already openly carrying it in my yard, as opposed to pulling it out of my pants lol. Or if I unslung it and held it in an intimidating manner, that could be brandishing.

 

[Good&Fruity]

Sure. But, did you read this?

Yes, and it doesn't apply here, because I live in WA, as noted in my OP, not New Hampshire. Plus, we don't exactly know the circumstance of that case anyway, so it would be a bad example to use here even if it was the same state. Simply posting a little bit of information about an article read some time ago is rather dangerous. We don't know if he pointed the gun at them, threatened them, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

So now we've moved from shooting the trespasser, to threatening them with it. Never said anything about threatening them with anything anymore than I said anything about shooting them with anything.

Right. But what you say you're doing, and what is actually taking place, and what a prosecutor may try to make a case that you did, may be distinctly different things.

What I'm asking is if it is illegal to 1) carry a long gun in my yard in general

Yes, probably, in most places.

2) carry one to ask a trespasser to leave.

Again, probably not a good idea. If a case can -- at all -- be made that the gun was there as an implied threat, you could be in serious trouble. The fellow up in NH certainly found that out.

Let's say for example, slung over my shoulder.

Well, now its slung over your shoulder. Better, probably, but still an intimidating presence. Why dance on this line? None of us are going to be pressing charges against you. None of us are going to be contributing to your legal defense fund, either...

Nothing threatening about that.

Again, so you say, and maybe so you believe. (Though, if I was standing on someone's lawn and they slung a gun over their shoulder and advanced to ask me to leave, I'd assume the weapon was there to impress me that I should follow their instructions.) Your opinion won't even be consulted, if the matter goes to arrest and prosecution. Someone elses' opinion of what happened and why might put you in a police car, in a witness box, and ... if enough of your fellow citizens agree with that opinion, in jail.

Just armed to protect my self SHOULD the trespasser try to attack me. Never said anything about pointing it at them, threatening them with it, or shooting them.

Yup. Sometimes it works out fine that way. Sometimes not. You won't be the one who decides which.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I've had numerous people at gun shops try to tell me that carrying a baton is illegal (just like they tell me a folding stock on a pump action shotgun is illegal), it is not. The law states that doing X, Y, and Z is illegal IF it is"..., 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." just like I said in my OP.

That is NOT what you said in your OP. THIS is what you said in your OP:

though the law is written such that if it 'causes alarm for the safety of others' then it becomes illegal. So if someone calls in and say's they're a scared little girl, then it's illegal.

Warrants alarm and causes alarm are two entirely different words. "If someone calls in and say's they're a scared little girl" does NOT cause the action to be illegal in any way shape or form. This was upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Casad:

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=9

Fourth, the trial court found that Casad did not carry the weapons in a manner that would warrant reasonable alarm. This factor is heavily contested by the parties, primarily based on individuals’ reactions to seeing a gun carried on a city street and whether Casad pointed one rifle barrel toward the roadway. We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.

And the facts in evidence do not support a reasonable suspicion that Casad carried the weapons in a fashion that would warrant alarm.

The danger comes in when you say, in court, that the REASON that you were carrying the gun, which you would not normally carry in everyday life, was specifically to have it with you when you talked to the subject who was not supposed to be on your property. NOW, you are definitely getting closer to carrying at a time and place and under circumstances that might warrant alarm.

 

[Mainsail]

I’m not going to comment on everything here except to say that carrying a long gun in your yard seems like a lot of trouble, and will do nothing more than make you look like a kook. If the economy collapses and there are roving bands of thugs making their way through the neighborhood, or the lion cage gets left open at the zoo, sure, sling your AR while you cut the grass. For day to day purposes though, a handgun in a holster is sufficient.

Second point is that if a trespasser enters your property and he doesn’t look like he’s supposed to be there (postman, meter reader, etc) my personal plan would be to call the cops as step one. I’m not getting paid, and I don’t have a medical plan, to confront trespassers. If you’re in the city, the police are only a few minutes away. The police like to confront trespassers, it justifies their existence.

Bringing the two points above together, there are a lot more times that ‘trespassers’ will be on your property with lawful business to conduct than there will be robbers and rapists.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Your intent is often the last thing looked at in brandishing cases.

You may have no intent to threaten the trespasser, but that is completely irrelevent if the trespasser feels threatened.
Now in a perfect world, any cop or porsecutor would slap the trespasser with a fine, and tell you to have a nice day.
Sadly, we have too many prosecutors who want to be governor someday, and will gladly trample your rights to get another tally mark in the win column. Your life means nothing to them, as long as it improves their resume.

Cops on the other hand, take any call where a weapon is involved VERY seriously. They are not going to know your intentions based on the dispatchers information. So, as is SOP for most cops, they are going to treat EVERYONE and EVERYTHING as a hostile threat until they have control of the situation. Then, some questions will be asked and things will get figured out.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Let's say for example, slung over my shoulder. Nothing threatening about that. Just armed to protect my self SHOULD the trespasser try to attack me. Never said anything about pointing it at them, threatening them with it, or shooting them.

Do you believe you could convince a jury that the subtle thread of force was not present in you carrying that rifle out to confront a trespasser?

If so carry on.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Good&Fruity: What I'm asking is if it is illegal to 1) carry a long gun in my yard in general 2) carry one to ask a trespasser to leave.

To the first, no; to the second, it would depend entirely upon what transpires; if anyone wanted to make an issue of it, you would have a problem.

[In response to the question, have you read this]: Yes, and it doesn't apply here, because I live in WA, as noted in my OP, not New Hampshire.

Careful. The man in New Hampshire was not imprisoned for a weapons code violation, but for putting the trespasser in apprehension of harm. Both states are governed by essentially the same common law in this area. Incidentally, carrying a firearm openly is lawful in both New Hampshire and Washington State.

We don't know if he pointed the gun at them, threatened them, etc.

He said he didn't, she says he did. There were no other witnesses. He was convicted. Therein lies the risk.

Just armed to protect my self SHOULD the trespasser try to attack me.

And that is precisely what the now convicted New Hampshire landowner contended. Didn't work.

Interestingly, in a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that one may not brandish a forearm at a trespasser (thereby committing assault), the court cited more than one precedent ruling in which it had been held that trespassers could successfully claim self defense after having killed landowners who has unlawfully put them in fear for their lives.

Posted by NavyLT: The danger comes in when you say, in court, that the REASON that you were carrying the gun, which you would normally carry in everyday life, was specifically to have it with you when you talked to the subject who was not supposed to be on your property.

Bingo, and you will be asked that question. Saying that you armed yourself because you were concerned that the trespasser might put you in imminent danger of death or bodily harm would simply indicate that you had had reason to believe that danger existed and that you should have called the police rather than going out to confront the man.

Should NavyLT come around the house, see someone in the yard, and go to talk to him, he won't have a problem with the law as long as he keeps his cool; it is not only lawful for him to carry openly, but he does it all the time, and there is no question about why he is armed.

The motivation of one who walks up to someone else in his yard in the suburbs of the city with a long arm would be much more suspect. And should things go south, so to speak, it would also be very difficult to justify having confronted a trespasser while carrying a long arm in the suburbs of a city rather than calling the police. You really don't want to go looking for trouble.

Of course, you may not be arrested, and if you are, you may not be charged, and if you are, you may prevail in trial court. Or not. The costs could range from that of some number of billable hours at a law firm to the loss of your record, your freedom, and your fortune.

I would choose to use the phone. I'll bet you could get that advice in advance from an attorney at no cost.

Since this is the Legal forum, we need not discuss at any length your risk of being shot by an officer or an armed citizen or the trespasser.....

 

[Yeager]

It sure is a pathetic day and age we live in when one cannot even arm themselves to confront an intruder on their own property.