Washington Open Carrying on 5/22/04

Status
Not open for further replies.
that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
Click to expand...
Org is right. This is what is referred to in the legal profession as an "objective standard." What that means in legal parlance is that a jury gets to decide whether a reasonable person who sees his conduct would infer intent to intimidate, or would be reasonably alarmed by the conduct. It makes no allowance for a cop going around and asking people if they SUBJECTIVELY feel alarmed or SUBJECTIVELY believe that he had an intent to intimidate. Subjective feelings and beliefs do not enter into it. The law always applies the "reasonable and prudent person" standard.
 
Well lets actually get the whole RCW on here instead of just the first section.
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
 
The full text doesn't change the fact that it is an objective standard, to be decided by a jury, not the responding officer, and not based on subjective feelings or beliefs of bystanders.
 
no but I can cut and paste RCW's as I see fit to aid in my case, I am not advocating nor am I condoning what he did, but if we are going to bring laws in we should atleast bring the whole law in, not just the part of it we want to.
 
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;
Click to expand...

That about nails it.

Anytime that the color coded threat condition goes above pink, or whatever they call it, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a citizen is in need of self protection.

The govt. has screwed itself by stirring up the fears of the masses.
 
Wow, this thread took off

And with the typical posts from the anti-open carry throng.
But My Dear God, why be displaying your hangun at a bank or in any public place of commerce. You may not be stupid, but the act sure is!
Click to expand...
Ten years ago, in Arizona, the only manner to carry was openly. Were Arizonans stupid then? I carry openly quite often, including my bank. Never a problem.

Ohioans had dozens of Open Carry Marches around the state last year to help publicize the recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling protecting the practice as well as helping to move the concealed carry bill through the legislature and to the anti-gun governor for his signature.

Where they all stupid too?

What about states where open carry is the only legal method? Are they stupid? What about Ohio where the ONLY legal method for carry in a vehicle even by CCW holders is in PLAIN VIEW?

Are *they* all stupid too?

Seems the moderators would have a real problem with any of us calling *you* stupid, but have shown no angst when you call open-carriers stupid.

Wimpy gun-fashion police irritate the H@LL out of me. It's as if, given the opportunity, you would have open carry outlawed.

Is that what you would like to see? Would you vote against it?
Shock tactics almost always succeed in turning public opinion against your cause.
Click to expand...
I've lost count of the number of people I've had pleasant conversations with at the local grocery who wouldn't have bothered to say boo had I not been carrying openly. Had it not been for me, the only exposure they would have to guys with guns is cop and robbers on TV. Instead, they get a dose of a father, mother and daughter buying the week's groceries while the father just happens to be armed.

Your tactic would have us become hidden. Believe me, THAT is exactly what the antis want. They want guns to be equated with The Sopranos, not you and me.

Rick
Phoenix (the 5th-largest city in the nation)
 
QUOTE: " Just because it's legal to abort a fetus, march downtown in white robes, or hold your hand inside your pants in public DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD DO IT! Sheees....."

FishorMan,
I'll say nothing else to what I've already stated.
The Hog Riders have it right when they state it simply in a nutshell "If I have to explain it to you, you'll never understand."

(Art wuz here, and not real happy about it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you know I started looking for more information in the second amentment, and it's legal scope, Every case I find has the same thing in it.

Notwithstanding the seemingly absolute language of the constitutional provision, this court has held that the right to bear arms(WA supreme court) "is subject to reasonable regulation by the state under its police power."
Being the key words there, I am sure I can dig deeper but that shoudl help some of you out...
 
VaniB,

I think you need to go back and study up on what "The High Road" stands for. Your insultingly condescending, gutter-oriented remarks do not contrubute anything worthwhile to this discussion. I am frankly surprised and disappointed that the moderators haven't, ah ... moderated it.

(Art snuck in. Hey, I like to get some sleep, sometimes. There's more to life than the Internet and arguments.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I happen to carry as close to concealed as I LEGALLY can do at this current moment. It has nothing to do with making a statement or an agenda. I only wish I could have legally pulled my gun over my shirt Saturday morning, (or atleast upon arriving at the bank and store). I had no such right to do that.

Just because the masses have decided to get their CPL,CCW and not exercise there God-given rights is the reason we have these stupid, objective laws on the books.

If I had pulled my shirt over my gun I would have committed a crime(PERIOD)

Would you consider that being deemed a criminal and hauled off to jail an impairment???

Sorry, I have only recently started carrying, so this is what I have been left with... open carrying. I have to start somewhere.
 
Last edited:
VaniB. I am afraid that your three posts and general lack of respect, lack of decency, and lack of rational thought are about to get you labeled a troll. Very unfortunate. Hopefully you can pull it together and stick around.

(Art wandered through.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I contest a few of your points from your link to your blog.
Quote:
How does one go about the process of getting a conceal carry permit in Washington State?
#1. Fill out this form. This form requires: Last Name; First; Middle; Residence Address; Telephone No.; Gender; Race; Height; Weight; Eyes; Hair; Driver’s License/Identification No.; State; Have you been a resident of Washington State for the last consecutive 90 days? Yes or No; List type and location of all marks, scars, and tattoos; Are you a U.S. citizen? Yes or No; another 1 through 8 of Yes or No questions; Applicant's Signature, and Date.

#2. After completing the application, bring it your police station, (subject to your location).

#3. First fingerprints will be taken, (original applications will be two sets). Some places require fingerprinting at a different location, with no printing done between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Fees may be collected for fingerprinting at this time.



Fishorman

Sorry, I have only recently started carrying, so this is what I have been left with... open carrying. I have to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

As much as I want open carry to be legal here in Washington, it is not. You said that you only started to carry recently. I suggest that you aquaint yourself with all of the state laws in reguards to carrying BEFORE you decide to go out and attempt something that only makes gun owners and second amendment protectors look bad.
 
NINEX19 Said: As much as I want open carry to be legal here in Washington, it is not. You said that you only started to carry recently. I suggest that you aquaint yourself with all of the state laws in reguards to carrying BEFORE you decide to go out and attempt something that only makes gun owners and second amendment protectors look bad.
Click to expand...
NINEX, I have to strongly disagree with you on a couple of levels there. First off, I see no evidence that open carry is illegal in Washington. The law states only that it is illegal if it is carried in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to be alarmed (e.g., waving it about) or indicating an intent to threaten (e.g., hand on gun combined with threatening words or gestures). Otherwise, from the law that has been provided here so far, it is perfectly legal. Secondly, he is doing advocates of the Second Amendment a great service by putting himself at risk for our cause. The Second Amendment says nothing about concealed carry. Probably few carried concealed when it was written. The norm was open carry. It is only concealed carry that requires a special permission. Open carry is the right which is protected by the Second Amendment, and by the Constitutions of many states. The more it is publicized, the better. People will realize that no harm is done by it only if they see it often enough. He is also educating fellow Washingtonians about their rights under Washington law and the US Constitution. If it were illegal, don't you think he'd be in jail by now? They have nothing to book him on.
 
Fish,

Washington:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
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.

Missouri:
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Mo. Constitution Article I, Section 23.

So in comparison it appears to me that there is nothing in the WA constitution that prevents you from excercising your God given right to carry concealed for your protection. Thus it follows that your legislature made an impairment of that right (which is constitutionally prohibited)

Don't try this in court. Us sheeple have been so conditioned by the "Reasonable Use of Police Power" baloney that we are deaf and blind to the real words that are written.
 
Sorry, but I gotta say 2 more things.

1) a license is permission. If you have to get permission then you are excercising a privelege, not a right.

2) If there is anybody in WA who is rich or powerful and thinks they need and employ more than one body guard they are more in violation of their constitution than Mr. Fish.

Does Chaney come from WA or OR? How about Bill Gates? Isn't he from WA? Does he have bodyguards?
 
From a friend

This is very similar to what happened to a gun shop owner in Tempe. He and an employee would make the deposits of large sums during the heady, scary days following 9/11 when sales were phenomonal. BankOne told him that they could NOT bring their guns into the bank. During the discussion that followed they were told that they should hire "armed guards" to make the deposits for them. I guess the "renta-guard" uniforms made the guns invisible or at least "PC" compared to two trained gun shop guys.

They closed the account and went to Wells Fargo where they are allowed to carry and make large deposits.
gary
 
regarding your issues with getting a CPL in Ellensburg...

I went to school at Central and so know how the EPD can treat college students and the public in general, especially those just passing through.

Now with that being said, when I went to the police dept to get my CPL, the lady there was nothing but professional and it only took me 3 days to get my license.

Also, knowing how the EPD can act, I believe I would have tried to make a political statement in a different way than openly carrying a gun into a bank.
 
Thanks for the input everyone. Is my line of reasoning already proven against in Washington Courts? I don't see where it has been. If someone can point where this reasoning cannot stand up, please feel free to point it out.

As for those nit-picking at whether concealed carry or open carry is a right, please lets get down to the basics. Answer the question, which one of these has been impaired?

I would very obviously say that it is the process to which you go through to become legal while conceal carrying. Do you disagree? If not my defense becomes quite valid.
 
Well, I think we can all agree that the law is, at best, ambiguous and vague. It does not seem to specifically address open carry at all, neither validating nor outlawing it.

Until some clarification is made on this issue by WA legislators, I would recommend to any WA resident that he or she get a permit posthaste and keep it concealed. Now, obviously WA is a very diverse place. Unlike the topic's author, I live in WESTERN WA, where super-liberal Seattle, Olympia, and Tacoma are. I would not under any circumstances even THINK of open-carrying without a black and white, clear-cut legal endorsement of open carry. Doing so would invite arrest, lawful or not. Western WA, for the most part and especially in the urban areas, has a different attitude the rest of the state, and it is NOT an attitude that is friendly to gun owners. I state this not because it is particularly relevant to the topic, but to give non-WA posters some idea of the state from a slightly different perspective. That is not to say however that I consider WA a state unfriendly to CCW....I think it really is quite friendly. Short of bars, controlled LE access points and "open area musical festivals" a licensed CPL holder can carry virtually anywhere, and I do everyday. :) But open carry is a whole 'nother animal here, and I would NOT recommend it under any circumstances.
 
You know I don't want to really start anything here, but I think FisOrMan should atleast have more information in regards to the Second Amendment, and how the courts view it, I understand that he feel that the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land, but the Supreme court, and the appelate courts have all said the same thing, and they have found that it's not, The following was taken from the Appellate court descision:
35 Wn. App. 583, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUND. v. RENTON
It's clearly in there black and white, now granted it's dealing with the cities ability to limit where guns can go, but the scope of the RKBA part of the Constitution is the same as about every case that I looked at.
The Washington constitutional provision concerning a citizen's right to carry arms in self-defense is unambiguous.

" Right to bear arms. 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. Const. art. 1, 24. Rules of construction require that the language be given its ordinary meaning. STATE EX REL. GRAHAM v. OLYMPIA, 80 Wn.2d 672, 676, 497 P.2d 924 (1972). The court may not engraft an exception where none is expressed in the constitution. STATE EX REL. O'CONNELL v. PORT OF SEATTLE, 65 Wn.2d 801, 806, 399 P.2d 623 (1965). However, the burden of establishing unconstitutionality is on the appellants who challenge the ordinance. LOUTHAN v. KING CY., 94 Wn.2d 422, 428, 617 P.2d 977 (1980); IN RE MARRIAGE OF JOHNSON, 96 Wn.2d 255, 258, 634 P.2d 877 (1981). It has long been recognized that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by the State under its police power. STATE v. KRANTZ, 24 Wn.2d 350, 353, 164 P.2d 453 (1945); SEE STATE v. GOHL, 46 Wash. 408, 410, 90 P. 259 (1907).

A constitutional guaranty of certain rights to the individual citizen does not place such rights entirely beyond the police power of the state. STATE v. GOHL, SUPRA at 410.

So basicly the way I see it is yes it is a constitutional amendment, but the courts have stated that it still cannot go beyond the states police powers,
So it's still a BIG grey area, just waiting to go either direction...
 
Well, I think we can all agree that the law is, at best, ambiguous and vague. It does not seem to specifically address open carry at all, neither validating nor outlawing it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, when I read the law, the portion about "... or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" seems extremely vague to me (a layperson). Yet in the case cited as a precedent, the court ruled specifically that this section of the statute is NOT unconstitutionally vague. Absent a change in the law, the best one can do is hang their hat on the clause "... that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." It doesn't say "causes" alarm, it says "warrants." Which ultimately means that if Muffy and Missy see FishOrMan in the store and become alarmed for no reason other than the mere fact he has a gun on or in his belt while reading the labels on shampoo bottles, alarm is not "warranted."

The next problem is explaining that to the police officer who responds to the frantic "MAN WITH GUN!" call to 9-1-1.

I agree that it would be best if the legislature would clean up the law. However, once the law is open for discussion, you don't know who is going to stick their grubby fingers in the pie, or what the outcome will be.
 
Siegfried_Geringer

I couldn't agree with you more on your last post.

Hawkmoon

I agree that it would be best if the legislature would clean up the law. However, once the law is open for discussion, you don't know who is going to stick their grubby fingers in the pie, or what the outcome will be.
Click to expand...

This is very true. Since the decision would be made on the West side where I am from and all of the grubby-fingered, anti-gun liberals and legislature reside, the outcome might not be to our liking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Open Carry in Washington State
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Gray Peterson
G
G
  • Locked
WA: Federal Way PD Recognizes Open Carry's Legality
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
gunsmith
G
F
  • Locked
Ellensburg, WA Open Carry Letter to Editor
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
Jammer Six
J
A
  • Locked
Is it legal to open carry in your state?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
MD_Willington
M
B
  • Locked
Wal-Mart in Southwestern VA Anti-Gun
Replies
8
Views
727
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top