Washington State: I love it, but seek legal info

[Bobarino]

UH, oops. i meant ferry. fingers getting ahead of the brain there.... the rest still holds true though

Bobby

 

[rwc]

Question: are there any prohibitions on CCW on the ferries? Other public transport conveyances in the Seattle area, or anywhere else in Washington State?

As others have said, no, you're fine with the CWL. See:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/info_desk/faq/index.cfm?faq_id=136

You'll want to have anything not on your person cased, and ammo boxed. Once or twice a year I walk on the boat with a rifle case and luggage, heading for the airport. Most folks don't notice and those that do rarely blink. Once one of the deck crew asked if I had a rifle and we ended talking about deer hunting. I was heading to MT and the cooler was 50 lbs. heavier on the return journey.

 

[rainbowbob]

Rcw 9.41.270.(1)

A longer version of this post was mistakenly posted in the "other" Washington thread:

I am pretty new to concealed carry and wonder about the following quotes (from the other thread).

I thought I heard you could open carry in most of the counties except King and one other one. I don't know where I heard that though.

And rickomatic replied:

Actually, Washington states preemption law prohibits localities to have gun laws more restrictive than state law. Therefore, it is legal to open carry anywhere.

The way I read RCW 9.41.270.(1); open carry seems to be a matter of interpretation. How it is interpreted by the local public and local law enforcement depends entirely on where you are, and what the circumstances are. I don’t think King County, and particularly Seattle, interprets it to mean that open carry is allowed. I'm from Seattle and there may be completely different interpretations in other parts of the state - even though the law is supposed to be uniform state-wide.

RCW 9.41.270.(1) (Unlawful carrying or handling of weapons) states (in condensed form):

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm... 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.

My understanding is that hiking in the wilderness with a .44 openly visible in a holster on my belt might be perfectly legal. But walking around my Seattle neighborhood with the same rig might be considered manifesting “...an intent to intimidate another...” - or - "...warrant alarm for the safety of other persons." If so, I could be charged with a gross misdemeanor that will cost me my concealed pistol license.

As I said, I’m new. If anyone can further enlighten us on this point, please weigh in.

 

[Gray Peterson]

All cities and counties are the same due to preemption.

As for the statement about the .44 in the middle of a Seattle neighborhood, there's a pretty large open carry movement now in Washington, which started from the discovery by myself and Jim March of RCW 9.41.270's reasons for being passed.

OpenCarry.org's Washington forum is the second most posted forum, due to our challenges to the thought that 9.41.270 makes open carry illegal in urban areas. There have been a multitude of training bulletins issued throughout the Seattle metro region, including the King County Sheriffs and from what I understand, Seattle PD.

Folks, if I can open carry at PRIDE 2007 and not be arrested, which took place in Seattle Center and downtown Seattle, then you won't have problems. Don't look like something strange, be cordial and you'll be fine.

 

[rainbowbob]

Lonnie -

I will check out opencarry.org. Could you elaborate further on your post?

What were the reasons for 9.241.270 being passed?

What was in the training bulletins issued in Seattle regarding open carry?

 

[rainbowbob]

Open carry

I went to opencarry.org and found these law enforcement bulletins specifically defining the right to open carry anywhere in the State of Washington. I am astounded by this new knowledge!

Even though I don't have any pressing reason to begin carrying openly, I do have a very good friend who owns many low-income housing units in the Grays Harbor area. He never collects rent (or goes anywhere else, for that matter) without carrying. Since it is legal, perhaps it would be a good idea for him to let everyone see that he is armed while he is collecting money.

http://www.opencarry.org/pdf/FederalWay.pdf

http://www.opencarry.org/pdf/KingCountySheriffsBulletin.pdf

 

[rainbowbob]

Because this is an ongoing legal discussion - I moved this from the "Washington State: non-legal-specific gun aspects" thread to this one.

I have just completed reading the entire text of State V Casad (a link provided by Mainsail in the "other" WA State thread). As in most issues of law - it's not always as simple as it might appear at first.

Although the above cited case succesfully argued that in this case open carry was legal and not grounds for search or arrest, it also suggests that the law IS open to interptretation.

I am "playing the devil's advocate" here for the sake of discussion. I cite the following from State v Casad:

When determining whether the evidence is sufficient to prove unlawful display, the trier of fact considers circumstances such as:
(1) the type of neighborhood in which the weapon was carried;
(2) the time of day;
(3) the urban environment;
(4) the manner in which the weapon was carried;
(5) the size and type of weapon;
(6) whether the weapon had a visibly attached clip.

First, the neighborhood in which Casad carried the weapon was mixed residential and commercial. He walked over the Eighth Street Bridge, which almost every person traveling across Port Angeles must cross. Nothing about this locale warrants alarm as would, possibly, a park known as a haven for drug dealers or an elementary school during recess.

See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, (1996) (upholding validity of Terry stop for unlawful display when suspects carried firearms through urban, residential Seattle neighborhood).

Under Terry, law enforcement officers may stop and question a suspect if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Courts do not require probable cause for a Terry stop because these stops are significantly less intrusive than an arrest. Such a stop is justified under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution if the officer can specify particular facts and rational inferences that reasonably justify the intrusion. No warrant is required.

Second, Casad carried the rifles at 2 p.m. on a Saturday...the area was filled with traffic and pedestrians. These facts contrast with those of Mitchell, in which we found that police had authority to make Terry stops of suspects for unlawfully displaying a weapon because they walked down an urban, residential street at night carrying a semi-automatic weapon. Under this factor, Casad’s behavior did not warrant reasonable alarm because he was not smuggling the rifles in the darkness, at a time when the streets were empty and the rare traveler was more vulnerable to criminal behavior, nor was he at a large public event where crowds of people could be gunned down.

In Spencer, this court upheld a conviction for unlawful display partially because the defendant warranted alarm by carrying a rifle while walking briskly with his head down, in “a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.”

Nothing about the size and type of weapon would warrant alarm (in State v Casad). Unlike in Spencer and Mitchell, Casad had hunting rifles, not a semi-automatic weapon. Last, there was no visible clip attached to Casad’s weapons.

This would indicate that there are many circumstances recognized by the courts in which the police may be legally justified in stopping you for carrying openly, even if you are not actively threatening someone. For example: carrying a semi-automatic pistol with a visible clip down a dark, empty street - or at a large, crowded, public event. This could include everything from walking the dog at night to standing on the curb watching a parade.

Rebuttal comments, please?

 

[Mainsail]

Spencer was carrying a semi-automatic rifle down the street at night, with the gun ‘at the ready’, or at least that’s what the police testified to. Your or my semi-auto pistol in a holster cannot ‘warrant alarm for the safety of…’ anyone, even if it's visably loaded. A pistol, in a properly fitting holster, is pretty much inert. It isn’t going to just go off. You would be warranting alarm if you were, say, practicing your quick-draw on a metro bus. But sitting in a restaurant, walking through Pike’s Place Market, visiting REI, or riding the bus with a holstered firearm is legal, so it is illegal for the police to detain you unless you were doing something that was otherwise illegal as well.

 

[yhtomit]

Wow, this thread is making me pretty happy about the state of things in WA

Now if only I didn't have debt and no job

timothy

 

[rainbowbob]

These facts contrast with those of Mitchell, in which we found that police had authority to make Terry stops of suspects for unlawfully displaying a weapon because they walked down an urban, residential street at night carrying a semi-automatic weapon.

Again...playing the devils advocate: This doesn't say "because they carried a rifle" or "because it was at the ready." This simply says that suspects could be searched because they walked down a residential street at night carrying a semi-automatic weapon.

If that is the criteria - I think I could expect to get stopped for openly carrying a 1911 while walking the dog at night in an "urban" neighborhood. I understand how that may not be a "correct" interpretation - but it appears to be one the court is willing to make.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Let's get to the real point of this?

rainbowbob,

Can we get to the bare point of it? Forget about the dicta comments. State v. Mitchell delt with a suspicious and shady person (ie gangbanger-type who stuffed his gun in his waistband) open carrying in a residential urban street at night.

Open carry is legal in Washington. This is borne out by the multitudes of training bulletins that have been issued across the Puget Sound region, bulletins which wouldn't have been issued if it weren't for three things: 1) Jim March and I going down to the archives in Olympia and determining the actual cause and reason for 9.41.270 to have been passed (hint: Black Panther's first chapter outside of California was Seattle's chapter) 2) Using the information contained in the words and deeds of the 1969 Washington Legislative Record and using that to get my then-local police department (Federal Way) to issue a training advisory, and then 3) taking that training advisory and putting it to every agency in the region, some who used it as a copy, some who developed their own (King County, Kent, Everett, Renton along with others).

There's also a more recent fact that also points out it's legality: The Legislature banned unlicensed open carry from 1994 to 1997 when it was repealed by the Legislature for being ineffective.

It's been a long road. I've had to confront cops secure in their knowledge that it was illegal when it wasn't (though administratively), I've had to confront gun store workers and firearms instructors for spreading the same crap. Someone recently set up a table in the WAC shows with the sign "Open Carry is Legal!". I've opened carried at Seattle Pridefest in 2007 at Seattle Center, as well as Pike Place Market and the Seattle waterfront. Several others have been around Seattle while open carrying. Others did open carry before I did, but I did lay the LEGAL groundwork so that the cops were served with notice that it was legal.

 

[rainbowbob]

Can we get to the bare point of it?

Thank you for the legal groundwork, Lonnie. You are evidently very passionate about open carry, as are many others. My question is: Why? What do you see as the advantages and benefits of open carry. Why is it important? I can think of tactical reasons why CCW may be preferrable. I don't think the difference in speed draw is significant. And carrying concealed makes it less likely that I would be disarmed. In addition, there is no question that open carry makes some people very uncomfortable. I am not inclined to make other citizens uncomfortable just because I legally can.

What are the tactical and societal benefits for OC? These questions may getting be off-thread, although I guess they are related to the legal aspects of gun ownership in WA State.

 

[357WheelGun]

What do you see as the advantages and benefits of open carry. Why is it important? I can think of tactical reasons why CCW may be preferrable. I don't think the difference in speed draw is significant. And carrying concealed makes it less likely that I would be disarmed. In addition, there is no question that open carry makes some people very uncomfortable. I am not inclined to make other citizens uncomfortable just because I legally can.

Open carry makes people uncomfortable because they no longer see it regularly. The main benefit that I see for open carry is that it re-enforces the fact that the object itself is not the problem. The decline of open carry is not a tactical problem, but rather a societal attitude problem and the only way to fix it is to continue to press for open carry to remain legal and hope that others follow are willing to carry openly as well.

Denying open carry simply re-enforces the perception that firearms are inherently "bad" or shameful and need to be hidden at the very least.

On the other hand, there is also a bit of advice that I never quite heed myself: "Tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmills." - Robert A. Heinlein.

 

[rainbowbob]

On the other hand, there is also a bit of advice that I never quite heed myself: "Tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmills." - Robert A. Heinlein.

That's what I'm getting at. There is no question that many (most?) citizens mistakenly believe that handguns are the problem. I can't imagine that seeing more handguns out in the open is going to have the effect of making them more comfortable with it, or change their attitude in our favor. And if not - what have we gained by open carry?

 

[Gray Peterson]

That's what I'm getting at. There is no question that many (most?) citizens mistakenly believe that handguns are the problem.

I don't subscribe to that belief. I think that most people really don't care, and that's born out with my own experiences with open carry.

My question is: Why? What do you see as the advantages and benefits of open carry. Why is it important? I can think of tactical reasons why CCW may be preferable.

It's important to me for political and constitutional reasons. For myself personally, my history with open carry was that I was born in a state where it was completely PROHIBITED to carry concealed, that the only way one could carry for their personal protection was to open carry a handgun in a holster. By the time my parents moved from Arizona, CCW licensing had not occurred for another 5 years. My parents moved to a banned open carry state (Florida) where I had lived for 13 years. Before I turned 21, I moved back west.

I don't think the difference in speed draw is significant. And carrying concealed makes it less likely that I would be disarmed. In addition, there is no question that open carry makes some people very uncomfortable. I am not inclined to make other citizens uncomfortable just because I legally can.

That's your own personal desire and want, and that's your own personal preference. My general response to such "discomfort" is "deal with it". I'm sure that some people are disgusted and uncomfortable with hand holding by two persons of the same sex, but I don't change my behavior for their discomfort when those same people give a free pass to those of the opposite genders to do so. Not only is hand holding and embracing protected by the 1st amendment, it's also protected by Article 1 of our state constitution as a whole.

 

[Mainsail]

In addition, there is no question that open carry makes some people very uncomfortable. I am not inclined to make other citizens uncomfortable just because I legally can.

Bob, that’s a pretty convinced statement considering you don’t carry openly. Actually, my very real experience contradicts this belief. Other than a few police officers, every single person I’ve spoken with about it, while I was carrying openly, expressed support. One afternoon my GF and I stopped at the Nordstrom’s in the mall because she wanted to try on some shoes. While I was sitting there, a woman asked me about my carry pistol. We had only started discussing it when Loss Prevention approached, flashed his badge, and asked if I would mind concealing. I pointed out that with what I was wearing that would be impossible, the woman said, “Hey leave him alone, it's his right!”

Remember, there are any number of things that can make another person ‘uncomfortable’, regardless of whether or not their discomfort is reasonable or not. Skin color, sexual preference, age, accents, physical handicaps….the list is endless.

 

[rainbowbob]

You make good points Mainsail, and it seems evident that open carry is right for you. But...You indicate that police officers and security personnel have had some problems with it. I want to avoid those kinds of encounters.

You also say that "...every single person I’ve spoken with about it, while I was carrying openly, expressed support." I suspect that the only conversations you are having on the subject are with people that are supportive. I’m guessing that the ones that aren't supportive (and may be downright terrified) are not talking to you at all. So you don't hear the negatives.

Finally, you say that many things can make another person unreasonably uncomfortable, but the examples you list are inherent characteristics that are (at least in my opinion) beyond the control of the person exhibiting them. It would definitely be unreasonable to expect them to change to suit others.

Things that may be considered offensive by others that are not inherent – such as excessive body piercings or tats, obscene messages on t-shirts, loud music being “shared” with everyone around them, and yes, openly carried firearms – are a choice. When you choose to do something publicly that you know may offend others, you are making a statement. The statement you intend to make may be: “I’m free – in a free country – isn’t it wonderful!” However, some people may interpret that statement to mean: “I’m doing this to make you uncomfortable because I love to see people squirm – and I don’t give a **** what you think.” That may not be what was intended at all, but choices sometimes have unintended negative consequences. It would be naïve to pretend we don’t realize how others perceive us. We have to decide for ourselves if we care. In the sixties and seventies, I flew my freak flag proudly. I knew it made others uncomfortable and did not care because I thought freedom of expression was an important statement to make – and because it was fun! I don’t choose that kind of attention these days…maybe it’s an age thing?

 

[MillCreek]

Mr. Wilson, rather than relying on the ambiguous interpretation of a poorly-worded statute, and some very few case law opinions, some of which are unpublished, why not move towards having an unambiguous statute passed that explicitly allows open carry?

Citing the case law may be all well and good when you take your arrest and conviction up the appellate ladder in an attempt to have it reversed, but I would prefer to not be arrested in the first place for open carry. Your training efforts aside, I am aware that not every LEO/prosecuting attorney in the state shares your views on the legality of open carry. The last time I checked, the AG's office has not issued an advisory opinion supporting your stance. Please correct me if I am wrong.

As long as the current ambiguity exists under the existing statutory and case law, we will continue to have this circular argument on the legality of open carry forever. I am surprised that the advocacy groups in Washington have not moved forward with getting passed new state law explicitly permitting open carry. I am sure there is a story behind that, and I would be interested to hear it.

My opinion here is not meant in any way to detract from the fine work of Mr. Wilson and Mr. March in researching the legislative history and persuading some LEO to adopt their point of view.

 

[Autolycus]

Washington sounds like a great place to live.

 

[rainbowbob]

State v. Mitchell delt with a suspicious and shady person (ie gangbanger-type who stuffed his gun in his waistband) open carrying in a residential urban street at night.

Yes...and on what basis and by whom was it decided that this particular individual was "suspicious and shady" and therefore not legally qualified to open carry on "a residential urban street at night."? This determination was apparently made by the police (perhaps after being alerted by a frightened citizen) on the basis of age, gender, race, dress, and lack of an attractive, high quality leather holster.

I know I don’t want to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny, even though I would probably pass muster. At the same time, I DO want people suspected of violent criminal activity to be given all the attention they deserve.

Open carry is legal in Washington. This is borne out by the multitudes of training bulletins that have been issued across the Puget Sound region.

To my knowledge, those training bulletins have not been issued by the Seattle PD to their officers. For the sake of my own education, I will ask a good friend who is a recently retired LEO what the proceedure is/was in his dept (not Seattle) in dealing with the issue of OC. I will also ask someone with Seattle PD what my chances of being stopped for OC are in the city. I understand and support the idea of making a stand when you believe the cause is righteous. I just don’t see the fun any more in making a stand just for the sake of making a stand. Waaay back in the day, I used to enjoy the righteous indignation felt when being hassled by the police just for being a freak. Those days are long gone for me now. To each his own.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Citing the case law may be all well and good when you take your arrest and conviction up the appellate ladder in an attempt to have it reversed, but I would prefer to not be arrested in the first place for open carry. Your training efforts aside, I am aware that not every LEO/prosecuting attorney in the state shares your views on the legality of open carry. The last time I checked, the AG's office has not issued an advisory opinion supporting your stance. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There at least several thousand LEO's in Washington, so there's no way to really know if every single one of them agrees with this. It's hard for me to read prosecutors because they generally aren't encountered in the street. Never once in my efforts have I encountered a police department or a city attorney who has told me that I'm wrong or misunderstanding the statute.

The only resistance I've encountered was either complete non-response (which is very rare), or a statement that their officers don't need training because they already know it's legal. Renton PD told me that line, 6 months later that was proven wrong and NOW they're issuing a bulletin.

As for an AG opinion, my understanding is that there's one in the works, but it's slow going. There are also who say that even an AG's opinion will not be enough, because cops will ignore it and courts will ignore it, continually moving the goal line.

As long as the current ambiguity exists under the existing statutory and case law, we will continue to have this circular argument on the legality of open carry forever. I am surprised that the advocacy groups in Washington have not moved forward with getting passed new state law explicitly permitting open carry. I am sure there is a story behind that, and I would be interested to hear it.

Yes, that law was passed in 1997, which was introduced by Senator James Hargrove (D-Hoquiam), passed the Legislature and signed by Governor Locke. Open carry was made illegal without a CPL in 1994, supposedly due to not being able to arrest someone carrying a firearm openly in Green Lake Park in Seattle (which the incident itself has questionable sourcing).

Now if you're talking about changing RCW 9.41.270 to explicitly allow open carry (similar to Utah's recent bill), there's certainly been communication with certain legislators on that subject, but since groups outside of the Legislature cannot introduce bills directly onto the floor (only legislators can do that), our hands are pretty tied if no one is willing to introduce. Reasons for this: 1) Short session this year and 2) Legislative makeup and 3) An almost certain veto by the current Governor.

 

[MillCreek]

Now if you're talking about changing RCW 9.41.270 to explicitly allow open carry (similar to Utah's recent bill), there's certainly been communication with certain legislators on that subject, but since groups outside of the Legislature cannot introduce bills directly onto the floor (only legislators can do that), our hands are pretty tied if no one is willing to introduce. Reasons for this: 1) Short session this year and 2) Legislative makeup and 3) An almost certain veto by the current Governor.

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about. I am surprised that none of the advocacy groups have supportive legislators who would be willing to introduce the necessary bill. As to a veto or not making it out of committee before cutoff, I have seen many bills on various subjects take years before final passage. You keep introducing the bills and lobbying for however long it takes. I would have thought that Pam Roach would be a logical candidate to sponsor such a bill.

 

[Mainsail]

…why not move towards having an unambiguous statute passed that explicitly allows open carry?

A statute isn’t needed, or even desired. The WA State Constitution recognizes our right to carry firearms, that’s law enough. Imagine a bunch of politicians attempting to write a law that ‘allows’ open carry. Sadly, as a group they are generally unable to write laws without also writing in dozens of exceptions and limitations. Do you seriously believe they would (or even could) write, “The open carry of firearms is legal in all places in the state not prohibited by previous RCW”? Of course not, that’s nowhere near enough words! They would have to exclude places (sells alcohol) and events (public gatherings) and who-knows-what.

The ambiguity in the law exists because of other police limitations such as Terry v Ohio. We all want the police to detain someone carrying an AK47 at the ready and heading towards the local high school. If it were not for that statute (…in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place…that warrants alarm for the safety of others…) the police would be violating the law by stopping the person. At the same time, however, we don’t want the police to use a broad brush and detain everyone who is carrying a firearm merely because someone else doesn’t like or is frightened by them.

You see, it’s just that ambiguity that allow the police the wiggle room to detain someone who appears to be about to break the law while protecting the others who are not so inclined. If you or I are walking down the street peaceably carrying a firearm, there are no laws being broken and thus the police are barred from detaining us. They cannot demand identification and they cannot compel us to conceal. If Suzy Soccermom calls the police to report a man with a gun and the police arrive to see you picking out a cucumber in the produce section of the supermarket, they can determine that there is no crime afoot (Terry v Ohio) and their investigation ends there; and by law it has to end there. If, on the other hand, they arrived and you were sneaking around behind the market in the dark by the loading dock (four prongs: manner, circumstances, time and place) they have, by the statute, the authority to detain you and determine what you’re doing. (Take the firearm out of the equation; a reasonable person would not feel threatened by you shuffling through the cucumbers, but would if you were sulking around the loading dock in the dark.)

Citing the case law may be all well and good when you take your arrest and conviction up the appellate ladder in an attempt to have it reversed, but I would prefer to not be arrested in the first place for open carry.

I don’t cite the case law to argue the validity of OC, after all, this isn’t a court and I’m not on trial. I like to mention cases like WA v Casad to point out the mindset of the judges here and to demonstrate the error of thought by people who say they wouldn’t OC for fear of being arrested for brandishing. You’re worried about arrest but arrest for what? Do you really believe the police have the desire or the authority to arrest you for legal behavior? I hope not, that’s a frightening way to live and certainly does not demonstrate the attitude of a free person. As previously mentioned, you would have to be doing something other than mere OC for there to be ‘reasonable articuable suspicion’ (Terry again) that there is a crime afoot. If that is the case and the police officer has that reasonable articuable suspicion he is going to detain you regardless of your sidearm. If, during this detaining, he determines there is an arrest-able offence; he’s going to arrest you. So now we’re right back to the beginning.
Walking down the street: Legal. No detention, no arrest.
Drinking coffee: Legal. No detention, no arrest.
Dancing a spry jig on the street corner: Legal. No detention, no arrest.
Being armed is also legal, so being armed while doing any of those things is, and must be, also legal. Thus, no detention, no arrest.

 

[MillCreek]

I suspect that other states have dealt with these same issues in crafting open-carry statutes, and I would think that a bright legislative staffer in Olympia would borrow from these when drafting a proposed bill.

And Mainsail, I would be most interested to hear your explanation to the LEO when they approach to ask you about open carry. Do you carry around a copy of the training bulletins referenced by Mr. Wilson, or what? Have you actually been approached, explained your interpretation of state law and the LEO agree with you and everyone goes about their way? If there is an especially successful method of interacting with LEO on this issue, I would like to learn it for future reference.

 

[Mainsail]

I am under no obligation to explain the law to the police, and believe it’s pretty futile to do so. If they ask me why I am carrying, I don’t answer; it’s not police business. I don’t carry the bulletins anymore. The police know it’s legal, so the best they can do is to try to intimidate you into concealing. If you know where the boundaries are, you know what is legal and what is not. They are betting you don’t know, and use that against you.

Well, as it happens I was approached this past Sunday. The security people at the Museum of Glass in downtown Tacoma got their panties in a bunch when I traversed their property. Three police officers responded. Officer Olsen asked how I was doing and I told him I was fine. He than asked if he could see my concealed weapons permit and I told him no. I asked him if I were being detained and he said no, but that he would really like to see my permit. I told him I wasn’t carrying a concealed weapon and that I didn’t want to give him my permit. He asked again and said he just wanted to see it and then I could go. I pointed out that I could go anyway, and asked him again if I were being detained, and he only repeated his request, thus not answering my question. He tried really hard to come up with some reason to get my permit, deciding that he needed to check the expiration date. His Sgt called him over to speak privately and after about 30 to 45 seconds the Sgt told me to have a nice day and that he was aware that open carry is legal.