Washington State: non-legal-specific gun aspects :)

[Mainsail]

Nice photos, Mainsail!

Thanks! The top two are the summit of Mt Col Bob in the Olympics. There is just enough room on the top for one tent, sheer fall on three sides, and steep on the fourth. The two lakes are Watson Lakes in the Cascades. The next lake pic is one of the two Klone lakes in the Olympics, a sorta secret twin lakes that is hands down the best Trout fishing I’ve ever experienced. Since there are no trails and the terrain is rough, they don’t get many visitors. There are hundreds of lakes like that here.

You are misinterpreting the RCW. Mere open carry does not, and really cannot, manifest an intent to intimidate. If you were carrying concealed and purposefully exposed it to intimidate someone, you would be guilty under that statute. Also, note the law says, “…warrants alarm for the safety of other persons”. It does not say anything about causing alarm, a very different standard. I was walking around in Seattle only yesterday with my Sig 1911 openly carried, and there are many who do.

In the court case State V Casad, Casad was walking down the street on a Saturday afternoon carrying two rifles. Someone called 911 and the police detained him, found out he was a felon and arrested him. They would also find illegal drugs in his backpack. The trial court threw out all the State’s evidence because carrying a firearm is legal in WA, thus the police detainment of Casad was illegal. To legally detain someone the police must have reasonable articuable suspicion that a crime is afoot. The State appealed and lost.

Nothing indicates that the manner in which the Defendant was carrying the weapons in any way would give reasonable cause for alarm unless the mere fact of carrying a weapon within the city limits in the open in daylight on a major thoroughfare in and of itself would cause such alarm. The statute does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public. Therefore the Court finds that the officers at the time of the initial contact had no reasonable articulable suspicion that any criminal activity was occurring.

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.

If you are uncomfortable with open carry but want to give it a try, let me know and we’ll have an informal meet somewhere. Join us over at opencarry.org to read more.

 

[357WheelGun]

Rainbowbob, just to back up Mainsail's point, the following text is taken from a King County Sheriff's Office Bulletin:

"In this law, mere possession of an openly carried handgun is not prohibited. In order to support an enforcement action under this law the officer must be able to articulate (describe in a convincing manner) malicious intent by the suspect or circumstances that reasonably cause alarm to the public. In either case, because open carry in Washington is presumably legal, the articulation must include something beyond mere, open possession."

You may still get hassled for it, but they can't legally arrest you for open carry unless you are doing something else threatening. Examples given include: engaging in an argument with a person and then returning later with the weapon to continue the argument; fingering the weapon during an argument; etc.

 

[rainbowbob]

Mainsail - First great pics - then a great post! Those citations on State v Casad make the issue as clear as those lakes you photographed. I am simply amazed by these findings! That is great news for law-abiding citizens of this state.

Unfortunately, it is also good news for openly armed felons. The fact that an armed felon, holding drugs, cannot be legally hassled for the act of carrying openly is "inconvenient" for the rest of us. But that's the way it is in a democratic republic (and let's not go off-thread splitting hairs about whether or not this is a democratic republic!). Often, laws that protect our freedoms also protect those that we don't like. Still...I wish there was a way to take that armed felon off the street…

 

[Mainsail]

I guess you can take heart that Casad, knowing he was a felon, was on his way to a pawn shop to sell the guns he knew he wasn’t allowed to own; at least somewhat of a noble gesture.

 

[rainbowbob]

Move to thread: Washington State: I love it but seek legal info

Double tap.

 

[rainbowbob]

Move to thread: Washington State: I love it but seek legal info

I have just completed reading the entire text of State V Casad (and thanks for the link, Mainsail). As in most issues of law - it's not always as simple as it might appear at first. There are arguments in the above cited case that suggest that the law IS open to interptretation as I first suggested.

Because this is an ongoing legal discussion, rather than a "What do you love about WA State?" discussion - I will move this over to the poster’s thread about legal issues in WA State. Washington State: I love it but seek legal info.