I believe I explained this on OpenCarry.org, but I'll explain it here for everyone's perusal. The source of this bill was back in 1967 when the California Legislature was invaded by members of the Black Panthers. This caused Oregon and Washington to react to it by passing laws at their earliest possible opportunity.
Those laws are codified in RCW 9.41.270 and ORS 166.370(1) and 166.370(3).
I don't have the history of Oregon's bill (I need to go down to the archives in Salem and pull it up), but they probably follow along the lines of similar, except that Oregon's law was locational and Washington's law was intimidative.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/WashingtonOpenCarryBan.html
The "two acquaintences" of his was myself and Jim March (Jim resided up here because he was working for BBV). We actually went down to Olympia and sat in the archives room for almost 5 hours, pouring through every piece of documentation we could get on RCW 9.41.270. Clayton's work was good, but it didn't go into huge amount of detail over the bickering that occured back in 1969 and the actual wording of the language.
First, the Black Panthers as an intimidative force across the country. California passed the Mulford Act due to their actions. And guess which was the first Panthers chapter outside of California? You guessed it, Seattle. One of the leaders of the Panthers movement up here in Washington is now running on the Green Party nomination for US Senator, Aaron Dixon.
There also was a local (to Seattle area) invasion, too. of Rainier Beach High School. You can read more about it
here. This occured in 1968, and was one of the impetus besides the California invasion. in fact, the Rainier Beach incident may have actually caused them to go forward with the drafting of the bill.
Now, RCW 9.41.270 started up in life as HB123. Here is a copy of the bill....
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to
willfully 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) 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 other apparently dangerous weapon while on the premesis of any public building or on any public property without within 500 feet of any public building. For the purposes of this section, the term "public building" shall mean any building owned by the state or any political subdivision thereof, other than an apartment building or a building that is used to provide housing for others.
(3) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1)
or (2) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(4) Subsection (1)
or (2)of this act 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;
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments; or
(f) Any person carrying a firearm who is licensed under any state or federal law to do so.
---
Lonnie here again. I highlighted the parts that were deleted out of the bill at the end. Now as you can see, the bill was both a locational ban and a intimidative ban at first. However, it exempted ALL persons who were licensed to carry under any state or federal law.
The House Judiciary committee were the primary ones who stripped out the provisions here as stated, with the exception of "willfully" being taken out (that was removed by state Senate amendment).
Someone made a comment during the House debate that they originally voted against the bill thinking that it was a "gun control law". In 1969, it would seem that the idea of banning peacible open carrying of handguns by those who were not involved in the panthers was unthinkable, even in Seattle. They wanted this law to go after the Panthers alone.
Ask yourselves this question: Why would the Legislature even propose both an intimidation ban and a locational ban in the first place? If carrying a handgun openly is intimidating by itself, why even take the extra step and ban open carry within public buildings and public property within 500 feet. The locational ban did not require a factor of intimidation. In fact, they stated that if you were licensed to do so, you could carry despite both the first and second subsection.
The "exceptions" in the law were left in (for the locational bans primarily) due to the Legislature being rushed and not paying attention, due to the fact that they had machine gun nests outside of the Legislature thinking that the Panthers were going to storm in with guns by the thousands. The law took effect immediately. A few Panthers did go and protest outside of the Capitol on the steps after the nests left, they did have their rifles with them, yet they were not arrested or charged even though RCW 9.41.270 went into effect that day. You can see the photos
here.
Also, read Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution. It states:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
The Black Panthers certainly were an organized, armed body of men.
The source of this bullcrap that open carry is banned entirely, or open carry is banned if someone calls the cops and is alarmed, does come from certain sources, and not from others.
They do not come from the state's two police academies, and there's only two in Washington, the State Patrol Academy (WSP officers only) in Shelton, and the
WSCJTC. I have spoken with both of their training divisions, and neither of them have any sort of material saying open carry is illegal, only concealed carry on foot being illegal without a license and the loaded carry of a pistol being illegal in a vehicle without a license.
Another problem is still of officers still think the case and carry law is still in effect (unlike the actual case and carry law memo sent out, the
repeal memo was rather small and easily overlooked). This was was in effect, again, between 1994 and 1997.
Yet another problem is the addition of this language to
RCW 9.41.270:
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.
I've heard some officers state that this law means "the state has demanded that you conceal your handgun or you lose your license". However, what is not shown by this law is that this exact language was added on to other RCW's (specifically RCW 9.41.280, the school carry law) by the same Violence Prevention Act that added it to 270. The Legislature here was not trying to tell us that they wanted open carry banned by this language in 1994. They were already doing that with the case and carry law, which was repealed in 1997 due to the efforts of Senator Hargrove with SB5326. The rest of the Violence Prevention Act of 1994 remained in effect.
The problem here is not with the academies, the problem here is individual officers and departments being a bunch of
and letting their own personal prejudices into their work, or hearing advice from senior officers who are saying this without verifying that actual law, or the history of said law. Folks, there are officers in the SEATTLE PD believe that open carry is legal. The problem is getting the departments training divisions on the same ballpark so that EVERYONE knows about it, along with the 911 operators and so on.
Common sense just flies out the window. 
means nothing.
