OC / CC unlawful display questions

If I am OCing, and put on a long shirt that covers my gun a little bit, but the barrel sticks out, is this brandishing? Does the gun have to be fully visible?

What if I'm CCing and theres some printing, or a reach up / bend down, and it becomes visible? Could I be charged? I do have my CPL.

Or if I'm wearing a coat, or flannel, while open carrying, and it covers the gun from the sides, but not the front.

Sorry about quick questions, running late for school and wanted to ask before I forgot to! Thanks!

No.

This is an OC state. You need a CPL to CC and nothing to OC.

Said Perfectly

decklin said:

No.

This is an OC state. You need a CPL to CC and nothing to OC.

Click to expand...

Said perfectly

theaero said:

If I am OCing, and put on a long shirt that covers my gun a little bit, but the barrel sticks out, is this brandishing? Does the gun have to be fully visible?

Click to expand...

Just tuck the shirt around the holster. You don't have to tuck it in to your pants, but just put your shirt between the gun and your body.

You miss a thread?



[video=youtube;o8f4KbmcQ0M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8f4KbmcQ0M[/video]

I decided to put on my holster and use some pictures just to make sure we're talking about the same thing

theaero said:

If I am OCing, and put on a long shirt that covers my gun a little bit, but the barrel sticks out, is this brandishing? Does the gun have to be fully visible?

Click to expand...

Like this?

This is legal as long as you have a concealed pistol license or are qualified to a 9.41.060 exception to restrictions on carrying firearms

What if I'm CCing and theres some printing, or a reach up / bend down, and it becomes visible? Could I be charged? I do have my CPL

Click to expand...

The thread that OrangeIsTrouble posted talks about that very question, no it is no illegal for your gun to print like it is in Texas. if your gun becomes visible accidentily I don't think that's illegal either.

Or if I'm wearing a coat, or flannel, while open carrying, and it covers the gun from the sides, but not the front.

Click to expand...

like this?


Again not illegal on its face, but it may be if you have the front of your coat open or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone. but carrying in this manner is legal on its face too.

Sorry about quick questions, running late for school and wanted to ask before I forgot to! Thanks!

Click to expand...

you're welcome, have a great day at school, just don't carry there.... unless your school allows it.

:arrow:

EMNofSeattle said:

like this?
View attachment 9399

Again not illegal on its face, but it may be if you have the front of your coat open or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone. but carrying in this manner is legal on its face too.

Click to expand...

No! No! No! It is not an unlawful display simply because the OP's "coat is open." And, if the OP "opens his coat to show someone," it still doesn't rise to unlawful conduct by simply opening his coat. To be liable under RCW 9.41.270(1) for opening his coat, the OP must open his coat "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." The mere display of the weapon is not illegal unless it is accompanied by some other act "that poses a threat to another person."

It is precisely this type of conduct (mere display) that LEOs improperly allege is violative of the unlawful display statute. You repeating wrongful interpretations of the statute only makes it more difficult to educate others about the proper interpretation of the statute.

Please do not answer legal questions about which you do not possess a complete understanding.

rapgood said:

:arrow:

No! No! No! It is not an unlawful display simply because the OP's "coat is open." And, if the OP "opens his coat to show someone," it still doesn't rise to unlawful conduct by simply opening his coat. To be liable under RCW 9.41.270(1) for opening his coat, the OP must open his coat "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." The mere display of the weapon is not illegal unless it is accompanied by some other act "that poses a threat to another person."

It is precisely this type of conduct (mere display) that LEOs improperly allege is violative of the unlawful display statute. You repeating wrongful interpretations of the statute only makes it more difficult to educate others about the proper interpretation of the statute.

Please do not answer legal questions about which you do not possess a complete understanding.

Click to expand...

I never said it was unlawful to carry with one's coat open, I was saying opening a coat to intimidate someone was illegal.

Your response is based on a completely false premise, I never stated mere display is a problem legally. I said to be cautious about displaying a gun in that manner, if you're arguing with someone and decide to open your coat that may very get you into trouble. but nowhere in that comment did I state mere carry or display was illegal in any way.

And while we're talking about .270, yes one should always err on the side of caution about .270 considering some recent incidents in Vancouver. if you have a crooked enough DA anything is a violation of .270.

EMNofSeattle said:

I never said it was unlawful to carry with one's coat open, I was saying opening a coat to intimidate someone was illegal.

Click to expand...

Sigh. What you said was "or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone" but now you protest that what you said was "opening your coat to intimidate someone." The use of the word "and" connotes that there were two things occurring: 1) opening of a coat; and 2) someone was intimidated thereby. The use of the word "to" connotes that there is only one act (open a coat) and that that opening was performed with the intent to intimidate (whether it succeeded in intimidation or not).

It is possible that someone could open a coat, thereby showing a gun which might incidentally intimidate someone, but does not give rise to the legal result that the intent was to intimidate (whether the viewer was intimidated or not).

Using "and" would make the person merely displaying the weapon culpable because the result (intimidation) refers to the reaction by the viewer. "To," on the other hand, demands that a proof of intent must be established before legal culpability attaches because it refers to the mindset of the exhibitor, regardless of the reaction by the person to whom it was displayed.

rapgood said:

Sigh. What you said was "or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone" but now you protest that what you said was "opening your coat to intimidate someone." The use of the word "and" connotes that there were two things occurring: 1) opening of a coat; and 2) someone was intimidated thereby. The use of the word "to" connotes that there is only one act (open a coat) and that that opening was performed with the intent to intimidate (whether it succeeded in intimidation or not).

It is possible that someone could open a coat, thereby showing a gun which might incidentally intimidate someone, but does not give rise to the legal result that the intent was to intimidate (whether the viewer was intimidated or not).

Using "and" would make the person merely displaying the weapon culpable because the result refers to the reaction by the viewer. "To," on the other hand, demands that a proof of intent must be established before legal culpability attaches because it refers to the mindset of the exhibitor, regardless of the reaction by the person to whom it was displayed.

Click to expand...

Well I never was A+ student in grammar classes....

rapgood said:

Sigh. What you said was "or open your coat to show your firearm and intimidate someone" but now you protest that what you said was "opening your coat to intimidate someone." The use of the word "and" connotes that there were two things occurring: 1) opening of a coat; and 2) someone was intimidated thereby. The use of the word "to" connotes that there is only one act (open a coat) and that that opening was performed with the intent to intimidate (whether it succeeded in intimidation or not).

It is possible that someone could open a coat, thereby showing a gun which might incidentally intimidate someone, but does not give rise to the legal result that the intent was to intimidate (whether the viewer was intimidated or not).

Using "and" would make the person merely displaying the weapon culpable because the result (intimidation) refers to the reaction by the viewer. "To," on the other hand, demands that a proof of intent must be established before legal culpability attaches because it refers to the mindset of the exhibitor, regardless of the reaction by the person to whom it was displayed.

Click to expand...

Good go there Rapgood... my way is to say...You are in WA...look at RCW 9.41.270...and read CAREfully. With great care you can understand what the legislature intended. Then, Thank God, this aint TX.

Well I wanna take pictures too!



I wouldn't be surprised if this was considered "concealed," and I wouldn't want to leave it up to a jury of my peers to decide.



This is the simple solution.

Cubex DE said:

Well I wanna take pictures too!

View attachment 9404

I wouldn't be surprised if this was considered "concealed," and I wouldn't want to leave it up to a jury of my peers to decide.

View attachment 9405

This is the simple solution.

Click to expand...

The way I understand the difference between Concealed and Open Carried is that if enough of the firearm is exposed so that a reasonable person could discern it's a firearm, it's not "concealed" as far as the law is concerned.

Perhaps rapgood has something to offer on this. He's the Lawyer, I'm just a "reasonable person"

rapgood said:

:arrow:

No! No! No! It is not an unlawful display simply because the OP's "coat is open." And, if the OP "opens his coat to show someone," it still doesn't rise to unlawful conduct by simply opening his coat. To be liable under RCW 9.41.270(1) for opening his coat, the OP must open his coat "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." The mere display of the weapon is not illegal unless it is accompanied by some other act "that poses a threat to another person."

It is precisely this type of conduct (mere display) that LEOs improperly allege is violative of the unlawful display statute. You repeating wrongful interpretations of the statute only makes it more difficult to educate others about the proper interpretation of the statute.

Please do not answer legal questions about which you do not possess a complete understanding.

Click to expand...

Thank you Rapgood

amlevin said:

I'm just a "reasonable person"

Click to expand...

When did that happen, did it hurt? LOL

amlevin said:

The way I understand the difference between Concealed and Open Carried is that if enough of the firearm is exposed so that a reasonable person could discern it's a firearm, it's not "concealed" as far as the law is concerned.

Click to expand...

Cites would be most welcome. The law is silent on this and I don't know whether there are any cases that set precedent.

I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though.

This is somewhat extreme, but may be an accurate idea of the yardstick an officer will use, so all of these could be considered "concealed" by a LEO...

View attachment 9398 View attachment 9399 View attachment 9404

Play it safe. Do as Cubex suggests: View attachment 9405

Also, to Theaero's original question: A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).

John Hardin said:

Cites would be most welcome. The law is silent on this and I don't know whether there are any cases that set precedent.

I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though.

This is somewhat extreme, but may be an accurate idea of the yardstick an officer will use, so all of these could be considered "concealed" by a LEO...

View attachment 9398 View attachment 9399 View attachment 9404

Play it safe. Do as Cubex suggests: View attachment 9405

Also, to Theaero's original question: A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).

Click to expand...

What's the reference to the yardstick?

John Hardin said:

A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).

Click to expand...

One of the few reasons (along with being able to carry loaded in a vehicle) that I am going to eventually get my CPL.

amlevin said:

The way I understand the difference between Concealed and Open Carried is that if enough of the firearm is exposed so that a reasonable person could discern it's a firearm, it's not "concealed" as far as the law is concerned.

Perhaps rapgood has something to offer on this. He's the Lawyer, I'm just a "reasonable person"

Click to expand...

I suspect that it is a question that would have to be decided by juries on case-by-case bases.
WRT to being a "reasonable person," I sure wish you and 11 of your peers had been around the last time I had to select a jury!

John Hardin said:

Cites would be most welcome. The law is silent on this and I don't know whether there are any cases that set precedent.

I asked a LEO friend about this several years ago and he said "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed." I doubt they consider a holster as "concealment", though.

This is somewhat extreme, but may be an accurate idea of the yardstick an officer will use, so all of these could be considered "concealed" by a LEO...

View attachment 9398 View attachment 9399 View attachment 9404

Play it safe. Do as Cubex suggests: View attachment 9405

Also, to Theaero's original question: A CPL allows you to carry concealed, it does not in any way require you to carry concealed. A CPL protects you from breaking the law if your firearm unintentionally becomes concealed. No legal protection is needed if your firearm unintentionally becomes exposed (note how WA differs from FL in this).

Click to expand...

To begin, the term "conceal" (and by extension, "concealed") is not defined in RCW 9.41.xxx. In the absence of a statutory definition, the words used are given their ordinary and usual meaning. State v. Forrester, 21 Wn. App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978); State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001)( “If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself”).

Black's Legal Dictionary defines "conceal" as:
Conceal. To hide, secrete, or withhold from the knowledge of others.

Dictionary.com says:
con·ceal    [kuhn-seel]
verb (used with object)
1. to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight: He concealed the gun under his coat.

Note that neither definition contemplates "conceal" as being anything other than completely out of sight. As such, the LEO who says otherwise is either 1) completely ignorant as to the definition, 2) completely ignorant as to the reach of the law, 3) attempting to encourage you to be (perhaps overly) cautious about how you carry, or 4) intentionally misstating the law to bolster his/her narrow construction of it in order to justify illegally arresting and/or citing OCers for violations of the law. Obviously, in each of the examples above, the weapon and/or, the holster containing it are not "hidden," "secreted," "covered or kept from sight," or "withdrawn or removed from observation."

In any event, the LEO statement "if any part of the firearm is hidden from view, consider it concealed" is wholly without a sound legal basis and flies in the face of the plain language of the statute.