• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal team takes aim at crimes committed with guns

Vitaeus

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
So what RCW or Federal Code covers "brandishing"? I have not found any RCW that makes the mere carrying of a fire-arm illegal for the general public, hunting or some other activity not withstanding, since I don't happen to carry a firearm for anything except self-defense. Washington doesn't have printing, brandishing or most other verbs relating to this.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Vitaeus said:
So what RCW or Federal Code covers "brandishing"? I have not found any RCW that makes the mere carrying of a fire-arm illegal for the general public, hunting or some other activity not withstanding, since I don't happen to carry a firearm for anything except self-defense. Washington doesn't have printing, brandishing or most other verbs relating to this.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with your post just adding my own viewpoint. Self defense is the last reason I OC, (although an important one). I OC because it is my right and I can, it also is an expression of that right to others raising awareness of that right.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
gogodawgs said:
Your comment in nonsensical. You offer no cite that there is a Federal brandishing charge. Can you do that?
Click to expand...

Probably not. Even attorneys with an anti-gun bias have admitted in court that a holstered firearm alone is not reason for one to be alarmed (from comments in the Casad case). It isn't the fact that one is carrying a firearm in the open that constitutes any crime, it's what they do with it that can be the problem.
 
rapgood

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
amlevin said:
Probably not. Even attorneys with an anti-gun bias have admitted in court that a holstered firearm alone is not reason for one to be alarmed (from comments in the Casad case). It isn't the fact that one is carrying a firearm in the open that constitutes any crime, it's what they do with it that can be the problem.
Click to expand...

I have seen this and several other references to State v. Casad, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1747 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2007), that court holding, “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.”

I caution all of you that, while Casad has some sexy language in it, it is an unreported case and cannot be used as precedent. It is, in fact, a violation of Washington Courts General Rule 10.4(a) that states, "A party may not cite as authority unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports." Casad is not reported there. State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 124, 876 P.2d 939 (1994) is the best choice to reference for the proposition that the mere display of a weapon does not rise to the level of display "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" envisioned by RCW 9.41.270(1). Although Spencer was found to have violated 9.41.270(1) (referred to as "brandishing" by that court), the court nevertheless laid out the elements required to impose criminal culpability on a defendant under 9.41.270.
 
Last edited:
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
rapgood said:
I have seen this and several other references to State v. Casad, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1747 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2007), that court holding, “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.”

I caution all of you that, while Casad has some sexy language in it, it is an unreported case and cannot be used as precedent. It is, in fact, a violation of Washington Courts General Rule 10.4(a) that states, "A party may not cite as authority unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are those opinions not published in the Washington Appellate Reports." Casad is not reported there. State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 124, 876 P.2d 939 (1994) is the best choice to reference for the proposition that the mere display of a weapon does not rise to the level of display "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" envisioned by RCW 9.41.270(1). Although Spencer was found to have violated 9.41.270(1) (referred to as "brandishing" by that court), the court nevertheless laid out the elements required to impose criminal culpability on a defendant under 9.41.270.
Click to expand...

You are correct in that Casad can't be cited in Court action but I referred to it as the statement shows that even among those against OC, there is no valid cause for alarm nor does it make it unlawful.

I found it heartening that within the proceedings of Casad, an admittedly anti OC lawyer made this statement.
 
L

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Vitaeus said:
So what RCW or Federal Code covers "brandishing"? I have not found any RCW that makes the mere carrying of a fire-arm illegal for the general public, hunting or some other activity not withstanding, since I don't happen to carry a firearm for anything except self-defense. Washington doesn't have printing, brandishing or most other verbs relating to this.
Click to expand...

I will agree that even under RCW 9.41.270 Brandishing is not speficically mentioned as a violation.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

However, as brandishing is very similar to exhibit(ing) and exhibit(ing) which includes in its definition display(ing). Then it is possible that if you specifically make some effort to draw attention to the firearm you are carrying or draw it from its holster without need to defend yourself or others or to otherwise prevent a crime, that a LEO could cite you as in violation of .270.

RCW 9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, 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 other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(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;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments
Click to expand...

Knowing that there are those who will argue with me on this. Let me explain how I come to this conclusion. If you go to: http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp
And type the following into the: ___ Search the Legislature's Website:
"Brandishing a firearm"
Then have it search. It only came up wih one result for me and that was RCW 9.41.270
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top