When did WA ...

[FLYPNW]

RCW 9.41.270 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.[/I]

QUOTE]

I'm sorry to have to disagree with Dave on this. Could you be charged? They can charge anyone with anything they want, but will they win? would you be convicted? Absolutely not!

Unfortunately I do not have the case, but there is a WA case that specifically stated that an openly carried, properly holstered, handgun is NOT a cause that warrants alarm in a reasonable person. And the Judge, herself stated that seeing such might cause her to be concerned, but it does not fit the criteria that is in the law.

State V Spencer was about a slung AK47, not a holstered handgun. Remember, I am strictly talking about a "holstered handgun" There is another case...like I said, unfortunately I don't have the reference right now, that specifically addresses a holstered handgun. Conclusion of that case was,,,a holstered OC it is NOT a reason to "warrant alarm" in a resonable person, and it is also NOT RAS for a Terry stop.

BTW: I have OC'd in WA state since 1970, never had a problem.

I agree with you entirely, and I also know of the case you're speaking of. "Could you be charged" should probably be asked as "Would you be charged", in which case I would definitely say "I think not."

 

[toywin12]

I agree with you entirely, and I also know of the case you're speaking of. "Could you be charged" should probably be asked as "Would you be charged", in which case I would definitely say "I think not."

I believe that case was State v. Casad...

 

[FLYPNW]

I believe that case was State v. Casad...

I won't wager money on it, but that sounds right.

 

[hermannr]

If open carry is OK why did the Lacey cops that came to my home tell me I could not have a shotgun in my own yard at 12 midnight while checking on a possible felony intrusion to one of my sheds?

RCW 9.41.270 specifically exempts you in your home and your place of business, but not specifically on your other property.

The catch is, a holstered handgun is not recognized as a reason to "warrant alarm", nor is it being carried in such a manner as to "manifests intent to intimidate". (This is probably the part that Spencer was conviced with.)

A handgun, or a shotgun, IN HAND, could easily intimidate...that is probably what they were objecting to. (combine that with being within a city.)

The other part of the exemption reads: (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;

If you were not in your abode, and had the BG in sight, and the BG was in the process of committing a felony, or was threatening you physically, then you can "display" your weapon, either handgun or shotgun.

I would say, it would be contestable in court if the police charged you, but HOW you were carrying your shotgun would be the question that would have to be determined. Was it in such a manner that there was intent to intimidate?

I live in the country, 20 miles from the nearest village, if someone comes on my place I cannot have my shotgun held in such a manner as to intimidate that trespasser. It does not mean I cannot have my shotgun, it means I cannot use it to intimidate. That is why I greet stranges with a holstered handgun...no question there.

Oh, BTW: .270 only came into existance in 1994...thanks to Gov Lowry and his cronies. It really needs to go away,

 

[hermannr]

Then why was the guy in Vancouver recently convicted of it? His gun never came out of the holster

Reference please. I see a lot of reference to the man being ticketed, and that Vancouver was going to prosecute, but no results.

 

[toywin12]

Kirby was charged, but not convicted and had to pay a fine. Mixed blessings... It reflects the flaws in the system and mindsets for those willing to see them and it scares the under-educated public, including some "gun owners"...

 

[hermannr]

Reference please. I see a lot of reference to the man being ticketed, and that Vancouver was going to prosecute, but no results.

No blessing. He should have never paid any fine, the City of Vancouver should have paid the fine, to him, for false arrest and malicious prosecution.

 

[Misterbill]

RCW 9.41.270 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.[/I]

QUOTE]

I'm sorry to have to disagree with Dave on this. Could you be charged? They can charge anyone with anything they want, but will they win? would you be convicted? Absolutely not!

Unfortunately I do not have the case, but there is a WA case that specifically stated that an openly carried, properly holstered, handgun is NOT a cause that warrants alarm in a reasonable person. And the Judge, herself stated that seeing such might cause her to be concerned, but it does not fit the criteria that is in the law.

State V Spencer was about a slung AK47, not a holstered handgun. Remember, I am strictly talking about a "holstered handgun" There is another case...like I said, unfortunately I don't have the reference right now, that specifically addresses a holstered handgun. Conclusion of that case was,,,a holstered OC it is NOT a reason to "warrant alarm" in a resonable person, and it is also NOT RAS for a Terry stop.

BTW: I have OC'd in WA state since 1970, never had a problem.

We've had multiple people arrested and CONVICTED of brandishing in Washington for open carrying in the last couple of years for just wearing a holstered OC pistol.

If you have some magic case citation I'd love to see it. I'll ask a criminal law attorney about it this weekend when I see him.

 

[toywin12]

No blessing. He should have never paid any fine, the City of Vancouver should have paid the fine, to him, for false arrest and malicious prosecution.

I don't disagree. The problem is: how it IS vs. how it SHOULD be. Hence "the flaws". The only reason I say mixed blessings is simply the fact that there was no conviction. If things were as they "should be", the "concerned citizens" would have never made an MWAG call and even if they did the dispatch and PD would have handled things differently. Perception is a powerful weapon...

 

[toywin12]

We've had multiple people arrested and CONVICTED of brandishing in Washington for open carrying in the last couple of years for just wearing a holstered OC pistol.

If you have some magic case citation I'd love to see it. I'll ask a criminal law attorney about it this weekend when I see him.

Please cite the multiple convictions. I only recall one.

 

[Dave Workman]

We had a case and carry law on the books until about 20 years ago, I think it was. Wasn't it unlawful under those years Dave?

What happened during those years was no prosecutions because county prosecutors KNEW that the statute, passed under Mike Lowry, was unenforceable due to the state constitution and previous court decisions.

Originally Posted by Dave Workman

Open carry has always been legal.

Concealed carry was legal until 1935.
Is that what you meant to type?

Nope, that is NOT what I meant to type. Concealed carry was first codified that year. You can look up the statute and track it al the way back to 1935.

 

[hermannr]

What happened during those years was no prosecutions because county prosecutors KNEW that the statute, passed under Mike Lowry, was unenforceable due to the state constitution and previous court decisions.



Nope, that is NOT what I meant to type. Concealed carry was first codified that year. You can look up the statute and track it al the way back to 1935.

The old statute prior to 1961 was RCW 9.45, it no longer exists and has (since 1961) been recoded as RCW 9.41.

 

[hermannr]

Please cite the multiple convictions. I only recall one.

I know of one in Whatcom Co, that was an arrest, that the person arrested for OC and his lawyer picked the counties pocket for quite a few $$$$. I know someone in Seattle that got the city for even more $$$$$, but I know no-one that has been "Convicted" in court.

A plea bargin is not a conviction, it is a cop out.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Reference please. I see a lot of reference to the man being ticketed, and that Vancouver was going to prosecute, but no results.

He was convicted

Man convicted for wearing pistol in Vancouver pizza shop - Crime Reports - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

Thanks for the clarifications, hermannr. This entire situation should be a high priority for change.. if someone is trespassing on your land you damn well should be able to intimidate them. In States like Texas you can shoot them!

 

[Dave Workman]

The old statute prior to 1961 was RCW 9.45, it no longer exists and has (since 1961) been recoded as RCW 9.41.

Yes, but if you look at the footnote of the actual statute, you can see it dated all the way back to 1935

But what's the difference? We have the law, it's in effect and that's all that counts.

 

[hermannr]

He was convicted

Man convicted for wearing pistol in Vancouver pizza shop - Crime Reports - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

Thanks for the clarifications, hermannr. This entire situation should be a high priority for change.. if someone is trespassing on your land you damn well should be able to intimidate them. In States like Texas you can shoot them!

The man from Oly is appealing, that is very good, he will eventually win and maybe the court will throw 270 out as being vague.

If someone is simple trespassing (walking through your land without your permission), he has done nothing wrong that would warrant an armed response, UNTIL he refuses to leave, and/or threatens you. Then it becomes felony criminal trespass and you can respond as such.

This is what is a joke about the LE community approaching a person at the "low ready" a la J Sanchez in Green Lake park. (BTW: this was an OC "contact" in Seattle. go to OCDO Washington forum (opencarry.org) for more information) If you did something like that to a trespasser on your own land it would be considered a "display"... "intended to intimidate", and yes, if the trespasser complained to police they very well might charge you for that.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The man from Oly is appealing, that is very good, he will eventually win and maybe the court will throw 270 out as being vague.

If someone is simple trespassing (walking through your land without your permission), he has done nothing wrong that would warrant an armed response, UNTIL he refuses to leave, and/or threatens you. Then it becomes felony criminal trespass and you can respond as such.

This is what is a joke about the LE community approaching a person at the "low ready" a la J Sanchez in Green Lake park. (BTW: this was an OC "contact" in Seattle. go to OCDO Washington forum (opencarry.org) for more information) If you did something like that to a trespasser on your own land it would be considered a "display"... "intended to intimidate", and yes, if the trespasser complained to police they very well might charge you for that.

Anyone trespassing at my rural place knows they are trespassing (It's gated and has NO trespassing signs everywhere) and they are likely there to steal trees or other items. I just had a very expensive plate steel vault door stolen after they cut my gates open. I am not feeling too charitable right now in this regard

 

[mjbskwim]

He was convicted

Man convicted for wearing pistol in Vancouver pizza shop - Crime Reports - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

Thanks for the clarifications, hermannr. This entire situation should be a high priority for change.. if someone is trespassing on your land you damn well should be able to intimidate them. In States like Texas you can shoot them!

As I remember this,this guy had been stopped before,like a couple days before,for the same thing.And he was acting stupid when approached about it.
The employees called because he was acting strange,had his hand resting on his gun a lot.
So this guy is more of a black eye to the OC community than any hero.

 

[hermannr]

Anyone trespassing at my rural place knows they are trespassing (It's gated and has NO trespassing signs everywhere) and they are likely there to steal trees or other items. I just had a very expensive plate steel vault door stolen after they cut my gates open. I am not feeling too charitable right now in this regard

What you are talking about is not simple trespass.

 

[hermannr]

As I remember this,this guy had been stopped before,like a couple days before,for the same thing.And he was acting stupid when approached about it.
The employees called because he was acting strange,had his hand resting on his gun a lot.
So this guy is more of a black eye to the OC community than any hero.

Maybe he was nervous. Confidence in the law, and a good retention holster, make for very comfortable carry. The most you should ever do is rest your elbow on it if you want to check. This is one of the problems with .270. Hero? Black eye? I withhold judgement. If the appeal goes well it will be good, if the appeal doesn't go well....well, that would not be so good.

Funny thing happened last night: Took my wife up to the Bonaparte Lake resort for Prime Rib Saturday, Remembered my carry, forgot my wallet. So it ended up she bought dinner for me, rather than I bought dinner for her (for her birthday)..

Completely forgot the carry was there until I put my seatbelt back on going home.