Washington State Frequently Asked Questions About Gun Carry

[Blitzkrieg]

Here's a guideline for open carry in WA State;

Scenario:
Officer Smith sees two men walking down a sidewalk, the men appear to be talking as they cross the street. One of the men greets a lady as they pass. Officer Smith notices everyone is taking a second look at the men. Officer Smith sees both men are carrying what appear to be semi-auto pistols on their belts. It doesn’t appear the men are trying to hide the guns.


QUESTION #1:
Have the men committed a crime by carrying their guns where everyone can see them while in public?

The correct answer: No
Washington is an “open carry” state for firearms. This means there is a presumption that carrying a handgun in an exposed holster, for instance, is legal except where it is specifically prohibited. Open carry does not require a license.

QUESTION #2:
RCW 9.41.270 states “It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm 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 others.”

Can the men be charged?

The correct answer: No
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.

I sure do wish all WA cops were well versed in these facts. I personally prefer to conceal but it is our natural right to open carry

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Ok cool thats how I interpretted in. I am not a student yet I plan to be soon however. I think they might just kick me out for the day, and I could return unarmed and have a fair "trial" on disiclinary action. being that their rule clearly says, "unless otherwise permitted by law" and I carry in accordance with the law.

I was reading on the "students for college carry" site and it said its the individual campuses say on carry or no carry. I just wanted to be sure that I interpreted it accurately. Didnt wanna have to call just to ask about that either. I figure concealed means concealed. Not only that in their Code of Conduct it also states no student shall be searched (persons or belongings) so if they really wanna search me they will need an officer WITH a search warrant. I just wanted to be sure there isnt some fine print in Fed or State law that says I would become a felon if I was discovered. So when I go I will just CC and never tell a soul and hopefully will never need it, the whole reason I carry is so I dont need it. Better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

And although I doubt a community college would be a smart target, nothing about what those pyscopaths do is smart or even predictable so better safe then sorry.

There was no way for me as a college student in Cali to get a permit so I carried anyway. What good will your potential degree do you if you are robbed and murdered? Is it worth obeying foolish administrators and laws if you as a woman are gang raped? These are questions each one of us must answer, and be willing to deal with the consequences

 

[wichaka]

WA state law does not provide any specific time or place that you MUST show your CPL to ANYONE.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.


(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

 

[wichaka]

OOPs, not quite correct...The prohibition is on "LOADED" pistol..not just any pistol. and there are many exemptions to .050 in RCW 9.41.060...to us common man exemptions (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), with (8) being the most commonally used.

How do I know this...for over 25 years I refused to get my nanny permit, but I still legally carried, openly, in a holster on my hip, in the car, and out. I just unloaded while in the car, unless I was going to, coming from, or participating in, an outdoor recreational activity (or was being covered by (6), or (7). I never did figure out (5), what clubs fit this requirement? There have to be some, or the exemption would not be there????

You are correct. I need to quit posting so late at night...or down more coffee!

#5...US Pistol team/Club??? Must have been something that someone from the state capital was affiliated with at the time.

 

[hermannr]

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.


(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

Please do not think I am picking on you Wichaka...becasue I am not. I really enjoy your stuff,,,,I know that part of RCW 9.41.050 you highlighted quite well...however...Get another cup of coffee and think carefully... .050 states "...IF required by law to do so..."

Ok, now the problem...(and I have been reading RCW 9.41 since 1970)...I know of NO current law that states..."...in circumstance X, Y or Z..you must display your CPL on demand..." The open ended statement in .050 is contrary to the US Supreme court ruling on random license checks in Prouse v Delaware unless there is a qualifier somewhere else, and then it may still fail depending on the qualifier and how it is written.

IMHO: Anything that would make the display demand unqualified and hits everyone, that would probably pass,,, anything that would make the check random, would fail, at least as concerns the US Supreme court.

I am not sure how the state Supreme Court would look on this demand in light of the wording of Article 1 section 7 of the Washington State Constitution...as this is considered better protection then the 4th by the lawyers I know.


I do belive this statement is an artifact of Lowry and Co's 1994 change to teh firearms law...(most of which has been thrown out by the courts...)

In Oregon, there is very specific wording in that you must display your CHL "on demand". If I remember correctly (i'm not going to look it up as we both live in WA) it is in ORS section 166.360 through 380 which specifically apply to "public buildings" think City hall...definition is in 360)

 

[wichaka]

No coffee needed here, I purposely left it open ended to further the insightful discussion.

So really we do agree, we just will need to more pinpoint when such "...if required by law to do so." would occur.

If one is found to be concealed carrying, that would be one point of "...if required by law to do so."
Some folks on a traffic stop will volunteer that they have a loaded firearm in the car, thus again "...if required by law to do so." would be appropriate.
Or...if during a search of a vehicle etc., investigating a crime involving such, would be another.

There are probably other situations I'm missing. But an Officer can ask out of the blue, but there's no duty to produce.

The Officer must be able to articulate the reason for the request, for the person to have a lawful duty to produce.

 

[hermannr]

No coffee needed here, I purposely left it open ended to further the insightful discussion.

So really we do agree, we just will need to more pinpoint when such "...if required by law to do so." would occur.

If one is found to be concealed carrying, that would be one point of "...if required by law to do so."
Some folks on a traffic stop will volunteer that they have a loaded firearm in the car, thus again "...if required by law to do so." would be appropriate.
Or...if during a search of a vehicle etc., investigating a crime involving such, would be another.

There are probably other situations I'm missing. But an Officer can ask out of the blue, but there's no duty to produce.

The Officer must be able to articulate the reason for the request, for the person to have a lawful duty to produce.

If investigating a crime, that one I will give you...actually, that is the only situation where I would voluntarily state I was armed and surender my CPL if asked....but that is probably moot as I almost always OC anyway, (just in winter weather the pistol may be concealed by my coat) so that is probably irrelivant anyway. No nanny permit needed for OC.

I have carried, OC and rarely CC, since 1970...In that time I have never been asked for my CPL, ever. I have talked to police officers while OC, I even had a MWAG call on me (about 25 years ago). I have had traffic stops (very rare, but happened 3 times in the last 40 years), still I have never been asked to display my CPL...so there are others out there that read the law as we do.

 

[hermannr]

No coffee needed here, I purposely left it open ended to further the insightful discussion.

So really we do agree, we just will need to more pinpoint when such "...if required by law to do so." would occur.

If one is found to be concealed carrying, that would be one point of "...if required by law to do so."
Some folks on a traffic stop will volunteer that they have a loaded firearm in the car, thus again "...if required by law to do so." would be appropriate.
Or...if during a search of a vehicle etc., investigating a crime involving such, would be another.

There are probably other situations I'm missing. But an Officer can ask out of the blue, but there's no duty to produce.

The Officer must be able to articulate the reason for the request, for the person to have a lawful duty to produce.

In another thread (I think it was on OCDO WA forum) awhile back there was a question posted about what I consider an illegal detention, for purposes of a random check of a CPL.>>> I would like to hear your comments on this situation.

Person OCing at a Metro transit bus stop in Seattle, waiting for the bus (still on foot, not on a transit bus) SPD officer stops and wants to see the CPL for the person that was OC and the pistol, and would not allow the person to do anything until the officer checked out the license and weapon. (In legal terms: the person was detained and his property was siezed) By the time the SPD officer was finished with him, he had missed his bus. Remember, at no time was this person anywhere but on foot, on a public street.

My suggestion was a formal complaint to the officers supervisor. Others thought the officer was within his rights because of that little line in .270.

OK, two things here..OC on the public street is a legal unlicensed activity so there is no legal requirement to even have a CPL to check. Secondly, in Prouse V Delaware, the US Supreme court has stated that random stops to check licenses for a licensed activity is unlawful.

Also, carry of a LOADED pistol ON public transportation is a licensed activity (unless otherwise exempt) However, even if this guy had already been on the bus, RANDOM seizures (the only reason he was contacted by LE was that he had an OC pistol), and detention of the person for a simple license check is still illegal. If the only reason for the contact was the openly carried pistol, the stop fails on both the 4A and Article 1 section 7.

So, what say you?

 

[Muddslinger12]

Whats the big deal in showing you CPL? It verifies you are LEGAL to CC. If you refuse to show it than how do they know you are not a criminal? And If that was the case who needs to get a license? If you can afford to risk not needing to ever show it to anyone except in a rare circumstance when it became an issue to a LEO then dont bother getting one. I personally have no problem showing it to someone if it made them more comfortable and put the situation to rest. Obviously only to a "qualified person" like a shop owner or someone it would matter for, not some average joe that can go somewhere else if they have a problem. But really why would you wanna get into a situation that makes you the "bad guy"? Just flash your CHL/CPL (dont let them steal your personal info) and prove your a good guy and legal to carry and be done with it all. or they can call the cops (assuming your a crook or preparing to rob them) and that wastes EVERYONEs time and our taxpayers money

 

[hermannr]

Whats the big deal in showing you CPL? It verifies you are LEGAL to CC. If you refuse to show it than how do they know you are not a criminal? And If that was the case who needs to get a license? If you can afford to risk not needing to ever show it to anyone except in a rare circumstance when it became an issue to a LEO then dont bother getting one. I personally have no problem showing it to someone if it made them more comfortable and put the situation to rest. Obviously only to a "qualified person" like a shop owner or someone it would matter for, not some average joe that can go somewhere else if they have a problem. But really why would you wanna get into a situation that makes you the "bad guy"? Just flash your CHL/CPL (dont let them steal your personal info) and prove your a good guy and legal to carry and be done with it all. or they can call the cops (assuming your a crook or preparing to rob them) and that wastes EVERYONEs time and our taxpayers money

What is the big deal? We do not live in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR. I do not need to "Prove" I am who I say I am, for anyone. If I am stopped for a traffic violation I will be required to show my DL, Insuarance and registration, Ok, that I will do, I have to show my passport when I re-enter the US from a foreign country....When I registered to vote back in 1970, I showed my Naturalization papers (you don't even have to do that much these days thanks to Al Swift and his "motor voter act"....that is enough "ID Please" burns me up every time I come back from Canada and having to show my passport. I have been crossing that border for over 65 years...A passport?

Just say NO to "ID Please"

 

[wichaka]

We need to look at Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot...anything less runs afoul.

I understand that some will willingly show their CPL, but in this case a CPL is a moot point, as the weapon is in plain sight and a CPL is not required...thus the stop and detainment do not fall under anything legal.

 

[hermannr]

We need to look at Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot...anything less runs afoul.

I understand that some will willingly show their CPL, but in this case a CPL is a moot point, as the weapon is in plain sight and a CPL is not required...thus the stop and detainment do not fall under anything legal.

Amen Brother...

 

[Misterbill]

Thanks for the post. I am an Oregon resident with an Oregon CHL, but also possess a Washington CHL as I am up in the Vancouver area quite a bit. I've always been a bit vague regarding Washington CHL dos and don'ts.

Your post helped clear up the questions I have.

Oregon has it's very own specific issues WRT this stuff. SERIOUSLY, do NOT rely on anything talking about Washington law in this instance.

 

[hermannr]

Oregon has it's very own specific issues WRT this stuff. SERIOUSLY, do NOT rely on anything talking about Washington law in this instance.

If you are talking about ORS 166.360-380? yes, OR has a specific requirement that you show your CHL if requested in a "Public Building" (as defined in ORS 166.360) but that is the ONLY place.

Other than that, OR is no different that WA. Random and roadblock stops for license checks (for any reason) are just not legal.