- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
Presumably you have a CPL. If so then it doesn't matter as the CPL doesn't take away the right to open carry.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Exposed Carry Rules in WA State - New Resident
- Thread Starter redbos99
- Start date
- Messages
- 234
- Reactions
- 243
Right, I have a CPL.
So then it would seem I was approaching the question from the wrong angle. I continuously have the right to open carry (IWB or OWB I think it would be obvious either way what I have). The CPL allows me to put on my heavy jacket without concern of that fact that my pistol would now be concealed.
Does that sound about right?
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
Correct
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reactions
- 2,196
If you can see the firearm it is OC. If you can not it is CC. Don't make it harder then it needs to be.
If you have a CPL then it does not matter how you carry from a legal standpoint. Printing, partially showing, all showing, none showing, taking jacket on and off like at a restaurant.
If you don't have a CPL then the firearm needs to be exposed at all times.
If you have a CPL then it does not matter how you carry from a legal standpoint. Printing, partially showing, all showing, none showing, taking jacket on and off like at a restaurant.
If you don't have a CPL then the firearm needs to be exposed at all times.
- Messages
- 2,459
- Reactions
- 718
For open carry as long as part of the holster or gun is visible it is open carry.
[A little more about State of Washington / The State of Washington laws and things]
In my rush, I'm, probably, making this sound more complicated than it is, but the simple is, you nip some problems before they rise. You can begin build an administrative record with local police and sheriff's even before trouble starts. If stopped, you can call the cops attention to the file and this may stop problems from starting.
If an agency acts contrary to its own rules, policies, procedures or the law, you have the start of a powerful defense. If you, a mere mortal, were able to find the policy or other prohibiting stops for merely open carrying a gun, it stands the cop on the street has no excuse for acting contrary to it. Look at cases like Owens vs Independence. Agents have a higher duty to know the law and are presumed to know it.
If an agent acts contrary to law and policy, it could be called, among other things, a failure to train and supervise on the part of the cop's superiors. Or, it could just be a willful and knowing violation of the limited powers trusted to the agent.
Agencies cannot make laws and rules up as they go along (e.g., consider the laws referenced at RCW 42.56.070(6)) of the codification of Washington's Public Records Act [PRA]. All authority must be, clearly, given, and, we, the public, should be able to find it to educate ourselves.
State agencies must publish their rules in the Washington Administrative Code [WAC's] and local agencies must prominently display their policies and procedures (hint - most don't and this violates the PRA and may be actionable under the laws referenced in RCW 42.17A.765).
Note that agencies, almost always, have additional policies and procedures that control the day to day business of the agency. For example, the State Patrol publishes a rather nice soft back of the rules its troopers must follow out on the highways and byways and it is, by law, available to the public for a modest price.
Most of what is talked about on these pages is, basically, about administrative law, since it is not the court which will stop you for open carry.
Case law well establishes that "due process begins at the administrative level."
At the court level, being denied reasonable access to pending case files has been determined a violation of due process (art 1, sec. 10 Wash. Const. 1878 & 1889), in that it is equated to denial of access to the courts.
Case law also makes clear criminal cases in the Superior Courts will be based on the administrative record. That record may be limited to an infraction filed with the court scheduled to try the matter.
I have seen numerous cases in which individuals provided reasonable, even sound arguments, but lost anyway. More often than not, you can go to an agency file and you will find the Notice of Infraction, Notice of Permit Violation, or other agency complaint to be the only thing in the agency file. In other words, the individual, and often their attorney, made no attempt to build an administrative record favorable to the defendant.
An agency record can be built many ways:
1) You can use declarations [or affidavits] to introduce evidence [attached and incorporated by reference], such as letters you received, the agency's policies, procedures and so forth. You can use them to notice the agency it failed to follow its own procedures and policies, and so on. You can file your own complaints also.
2) You can request agency hearings, or even appeals. Technically, until the hearing or appeal is resolved, you can challenge jurisdiction of the court.
3) You can make requests for access to critical agency records, such as its policies and procedures pertaining to a certain matter (agencies are not free to make the rules up, as they go along, and they cannot have rules that counter law).
4) Oral testimony, phone recordings and so forth.
The agency receiving a records request MUST respond to it (chapter 42.56 RCW - the codification of Washington's Public Records Act).
If you are dealing with an agency case and your records request(s) and response(s) to them do not appear in the file, you can direct the agency to place copies in the file. If they won't, you can make a simple, one page declaration introducing the document, with reference, in the heading, to the case, and file it with the agency.
Whatever you do administratively, make clear, in the heading of the document, what the purpose, or purposes of the document is/are. For example, Ralph vs City of _____ Police, Infraction No. ___, and Request for Hearing, or Request for Access to Records and so forth.
Mere letters hold little value, as responses to complaints and such, even though courts are to "liberally construe the pleadings and things of litigants." That is not to say they are never useful. When attached and incorporated into a declaration or sworn affidavit, they can be used to show the individual threatened you, or the agency failed to follow its own procedures and so forth.
A declaration, or affidavit, essentially, puts the author in a position of being held accountable, if he or she misrepresents fact. Note most complaint forms provided by police indicate false complaints are, themselves, criminal acts. Consider, for example, Washington's RCW 9A.72.080, which states any statement not known to be true is false.
__________________________
Mere "reports" of an individual walking around with a gun, or even that the individual pointed or waived the gun are insufficient to arrest. Nothing prohibits a cop from talking with people, but someone has to put their neck on the line with a VALID complaint accompanied by a declaration, at the least. Otherwise, a mere anonymous phone call would be grounds for searches of houses and so forth. In the end, the declaration insures you and the courts can hold complainants accountable should the "complaint" not be proven true. Remember:
1) All are innocent, until proven guilty (except in infractions and such, then the devious bastards we trusted flipped all so we have to prove ourselves innocent and the agent it presumed to tell the truth. Ironically, perhaps, our last vestige of freedom protections rest in criminal law); and,
2) Cops cannot arrest on misdemeanors, unless they witness the act.
In my rush, I'm, probably, making this sound more complicated than it is, but the simple is, you nip some problems before they rise. You can begin build an administrative record with local police and sheriff's even before trouble starts. If stopped, you can call the cops attention to the file and this may stop problems from starting.
If an agency acts contrary to its own rules, policies, procedures or the law, you have the start of a powerful defense. If you, a mere mortal, were able to find the policy or other prohibiting stops for merely open carrying a gun, it stands the cop on the street has no excuse for acting contrary to it. Look at cases like Owens vs Independence. Agents have a higher duty to know the law and are presumed to know it.
If an agent acts contrary to law and policy, it could be called, among other things, a failure to train and supervise on the part of the cop's superiors. Or, it could just be a willful and knowing violation of the limited powers trusted to the agent.
Agencies cannot make laws and rules up as they go along (e.g., consider the laws referenced at RCW 42.56.070(6)) of the codification of Washington's Public Records Act [PRA]. All authority must be, clearly, given, and, we, the public, should be able to find it to educate ourselves.
State agencies must publish their rules in the Washington Administrative Code [WAC's] and local agencies must prominently display their policies and procedures (hint - most don't and this violates the PRA and may be actionable under the laws referenced in RCW 42.17A.765).
Note that agencies, almost always, have additional policies and procedures that control the day to day business of the agency. For example, the State Patrol publishes a rather nice soft back of the rules its troopers must follow out on the highways and byways and it is, by law, available to the public for a modest price.
Most of what is talked about on these pages is, basically, about administrative law, since it is not the court which will stop you for open carry.
Case law well establishes that "due process begins at the administrative level."
At the court level, being denied reasonable access to pending case files has been determined a violation of due process (art 1, sec. 10 Wash. Const. 1878 & 1889), in that it is equated to denial of access to the courts.
Case law also makes clear criminal cases in the Superior Courts will be based on the administrative record. That record may be limited to an infraction filed with the court scheduled to try the matter.
I have seen numerous cases in which individuals provided reasonable, even sound arguments, but lost anyway. More often than not, you can go to an agency file and you will find the Notice of Infraction, Notice of Permit Violation, or other agency complaint to be the only thing in the agency file. In other words, the individual, and often their attorney, made no attempt to build an administrative record favorable to the defendant.
An agency record can be built many ways:
1) You can use declarations [or affidavits] to introduce evidence [attached and incorporated by reference], such as letters you received, the agency's policies, procedures and so forth. You can use them to notice the agency it failed to follow its own procedures and policies, and so on. You can file your own complaints also.
2) You can request agency hearings, or even appeals. Technically, until the hearing or appeal is resolved, you can challenge jurisdiction of the court.
3) You can make requests for access to critical agency records, such as its policies and procedures pertaining to a certain matter (agencies are not free to make the rules up, as they go along, and they cannot have rules that counter law).
4) Oral testimony, phone recordings and so forth.
The agency receiving a records request MUST respond to it (chapter 42.56 RCW - the codification of Washington's Public Records Act).
If you are dealing with an agency case and your records request(s) and response(s) to them do not appear in the file, you can direct the agency to place copies in the file. If they won't, you can make a simple, one page declaration introducing the document, with reference, in the heading, to the case, and file it with the agency.
Whatever you do administratively, make clear, in the heading of the document, what the purpose, or purposes of the document is/are. For example, Ralph vs City of _____ Police, Infraction No. ___, and Request for Hearing, or Request for Access to Records and so forth.
Mere letters hold little value, as responses to complaints and such, even though courts are to "liberally construe the pleadings and things of litigants." That is not to say they are never useful. When attached and incorporated into a declaration or sworn affidavit, they can be used to show the individual threatened you, or the agency failed to follow its own procedures and so forth.
A declaration, or affidavit, essentially, puts the author in a position of being held accountable, if he or she misrepresents fact. Note most complaint forms provided by police indicate false complaints are, themselves, criminal acts. Consider, for example, Washington's RCW 9A.72.080, which states any statement not known to be true is false.
__________________________
Mere "reports" of an individual walking around with a gun, or even that the individual pointed or waived the gun are insufficient to arrest. Nothing prohibits a cop from talking with people, but someone has to put their neck on the line with a VALID complaint accompanied by a declaration, at the least. Otherwise, a mere anonymous phone call would be grounds for searches of houses and so forth. In the end, the declaration insures you and the courts can hold complainants accountable should the "complaint" not be proven true. Remember:
1) All are innocent, until proven guilty (except in infractions and such, then the devious bastards we trusted flipped all so we have to prove ourselves innocent and the agent it presumed to tell the truth. Ironically, perhaps, our last vestige of freedom protections rest in criminal law); and,
2) Cops cannot arrest on misdemeanors, unless they witness the act.
Can I (or, would the jury reasonable infer) see your weapon, even part of it? If "yes," then OPEN CARRY. If "no," CONCEALED CARRY.
Printing is another matter. But, use the "reasonableness method." If somebody else can (or should be able to) see the firearm, then this qualifies as open carry. Common sense prevails.
- Messages
- 566
- Reactions
- 349
Welcome to WA and enjoy being able to own & shoot just about damn near anything that isn't federally banned. At this point, the only things not allowed in WA are SBS and full-autos.
Oh and enjoy one of the easiest CPLs in the country. The only thing better is constitutional carry.
P.S. a little anecdote.. My wife and I got stopped several years back going out to shoot in the woods. It was a Kitsap co. sheriff. Chatted at the door for a minute, he asked if I had any guns. I simply said "we're going shooting, so yeah, I have a bunch." He stepped back, said have a good day, and that was it. Didn't even want to see a CPL.
Good luck ever having that happen in MA.
Oh and enjoy one of the easiest CPLs in the country. The only thing better is constitutional carry.
P.S. a little anecdote.. My wife and I got stopped several years back going out to shoot in the woods. It was a Kitsap co. sheriff. Chatted at the door for a minute, he asked if I had any guns. I simply said "we're going shooting, so yeah, I have a bunch." He stepped back, said have a good day, and that was it. Didn't even want to see a CPL.
Good luck ever having that happen in MA.
- Messages
- 327
- Reactions
- 501
So, not being the OP but I don't want to create another thread for an extension of this question..
Does open carry have a minimum age limit other than 18? I've heard it's 21 but never have seen evidence of this claim.
Does open carry have a minimum age limit other than 18? I've heard it's 21 but never have seen evidence of this claim.
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
Yes, in WA you must be 21 to open carry with a few exceptions. Basically going to an outdoor activity is allowed just as it would be for anyone else over 21.
- Messages
- 327
- Reactions
- 501
So as long as you follow by the rules presented in RCW 9.41.240 being on your property, home, or fixed place of work, you may carry a pistol. Or if you're in an outdoor activity; but what exactly qualifies as an outdoor activity? I've heard anything from as lenient as going on a walk or run qualifying, and as strict as "has to be for hunting, fishing, hiking" etc.
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;
Seems pretty clear to me. If it's a lawful outdoor activity then it qualifies. Camping, hunting, fishing, playing tennis, baseball, going for a walk outside, walking the dog, having a BBQ at the park, etc. The way this is written you have a lot of latitude in what is included a long as the activity is lawful. Going out to shoot insulators off electric poles or poaching would not qualify as they are unlawful activities.
Seems pretty clear to me. If it's a lawful outdoor activity then it qualifies. Camping, hunting, fishing, playing tennis, baseball, going for a walk outside, walking the dog, having a BBQ at the park, etc. The way this is written you have a lot of latitude in what is included a long as the activity is lawful. Going out to shoot insulators off electric poles or poaching would not qualify as they are unlawful activities.
- Messages
- 327
- Reactions
- 501
I see, thanks for the clarification.
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
NP, the other exceptions are listed here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060
Keep in mind that the exceptions apply to 9.41.50 which is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
FWIW, I keep these both (along with a few others) as documents on my phone to refer to if I ever need to. So far I have never had to but I figure it's better to be prepared and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Keep in mind that the exceptions apply to 9.41.50 which is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
FWIW, I keep these both (along with a few others) as documents on my phone to refer to if I ever need to. So far I have never had to but I figure it's better to be prepared and not need it than to need it and not have it.
And, strangely, going out to smoke a joint now qualifies, too. Keep Washington Weird?
- Messages
- 5,049
- Reactions
- 1,356
<Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel! Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!
So if I go "camping" in an RV park with our 41' motorhome and take one of our cats for a walk on his leash I don't need my CPL? Seems like that might be stretching it some!
Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member
"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"
So if I go "camping" in an RV park with our 41' motorhome and take one of our cats for a walk on his leash I don't need my CPL? Seems like that might be stretching it some!
Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member
"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
How? Stretching it would imply reading more into it than what is there. The law is pretty specific to include any lawful outdoor activity. No stretching involved.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
Triumph Thunderbird 1600 windscreen. new.
- Started by coonanboy
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Aimpoint Duty RDS/3X-C Magnifier With Unity Mounts
- Started by T38
- Replies: 0
-
-