Rcw 9.41.270

How does the recent shooting(s) at the School in CT affect open carry with respect to RCW 9.41.270?

In this thread, http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?52346-LEO-gave-me-a-ticket, the OP was ticketed and charge due to the fact that alarm or potential alarm was created because a crime was commited in the area he was at the day prior.

Given the sensitivity surrounding the Newtown CT school shooting, I suspect a much greater amount of alarm would ensue and result in MWAG calls if open carriers were spotted on or around school properties.

Would RCW 9.41.270 make open carriers subject to citation/arrest?

How long a period of time needs to lapse before one would not be in violation of this statute?

-Z

I wouldn't just stand around near a school while open carrying. Other than that why would anything change?

The intent of the law is the force of the law.

To find the intent of the law you must find out when it was passed in Session law and then look at what was happening at what was happening at that time.

As it turns out, according to Slapmonkay, was that the Black Panthers were going around trying to intimidate people with the fact they were armed. Yet another gun law passed about race.

The Sullivan Act was passed for a similar reason.

amlevin said:

I wouldn't just stand around near a school while open carrying. Other than that why would anything change?

Click to expand...

Because under this statute the mere act of being in the vicinity with a firearm displayed where one could reasonably believe the presenece of a firearm may cause alarm would be cause for citation/arrest. In this instance as seen in the thread I linked to from this forum one can be found in violation even if their firearm is properly/securely holstered. So picking up your child or just walking through the vicinity of a school zone could be enough given the current emotional climate and possible paranoia from the CT shooting.

-Z

I have OC'd everywhere as I normally do. Mostly positive looks and encounters. Most people with half a brain realize they are safer when guns are around.

A properly holstered firearm is not carried, in a manner, that would meet the criteria in .270, IMO. A legal act does not become illegal due to the act of a madman 3000 miles away. There was an officer involved shooting at a local Wal Mart a few years ago, I open carried to the same place the next day, nothing was said and few folks even noticed. The same will apply if I have to pick up my eldest from her school, within the requirements of the RCW's which get complicated and I don't feel like sharing the what where and how of my visits to her school on a public forum. Your mileage may vary, the cited conviction for .270 has more to the story, but I have not read a transcript of the case so I don't know the details of what the jury of 6 heard to make their decision. I expect it was also an issue of poor legal representation, but again I don't know it for a fact.

Vitaeus said:

Your mileage may vary, the cited conviction for .270 has more to the story, but I have not read a transcript of the case so I don't know the details of what the jury of 6 heard to make their decision. I expect it was also an issue of poor legal representation, but again I don't know it for a fact.

Click to expand...

The jury of 6 included gun owners. It's just possible that they, who heard all the evidence, thought the persons actions did warrant alarm.

The difference between "us" and "the jury" is that the jury heard the evidence. We've only heard one side. Even the attorney who received a copy of the transcript has apparently lost interest.

amlevin said:

The jury of 6 included gun owners. It's just possible that they, who heard all the evidence, thought the persons actions did warrant alarm.

The difference between "us" and "the jury" is that the jury heard the evidence. We've only heard one side. Even the attorney who received a copy of the transcript has apparently lost interest.

Click to expand...

Gun owners don't necessarily mean liberty lovers or they are on our side. I could easily see 6 CC guys not liking an OC'er, I run into some CC guys who think OC'ers are going to ruin it for them.

The attorney has moved, and has expressed deep disappointment in the ruling.

Remember the prosecutor forced a jury upon Josh, I think he knew legally he didn't have a case.

sudden valley gunner said:

The attorney has moved, and has expressed deep disappointment in the ruling.

Click to expand...

And he's the only "pro gun rights" attorney in practice that could take the appeal? That is if there truly are grounds for one?

amlevin said:

And he's the only "pro gun rights" attorney in practice that could take the appeal? That is if there truly are grounds for one?

Click to expand...

So that proves me wrong how?

Zohan said:

Because under this statute the mere act of being in the vicinity with a firearm displayed where one could reasonably believe the presenece of a firearm may cause alarm would be cause for citation/arrest. In this instance as seen in the thread I linked to from this forum one can be found in violation even if their firearm is properly/securely holstered. So picking up your child or just walking through the vicinity of a school zone could be enough given the current emotional climate and possible paranoia from the CT shooting.

Click to expand...

Vitaeus said:

A properly holstered firearm is not carried, in a manner, that would meet the criteria in .270, IMO. A legal act does not become illegal due to the act of a madman 3000 miles away. There was an officer involved shooting at a local Wal Mart a few years ago, I open carried to the same place the next day, nothing was said and few folks even noticed. The same will apply if I have to pick up my eldest from her school, within the requirements of the RCW's which get complicated and I don't feel like sharing the what where and how of my visits to her school on a public forum. Your mileage may vary, the cited conviction for .270 has more to the story, but I have not read a transcript of the case so I don't know the details of what the jury of 6 heard to make their decision. I expect it was also an issue of poor legal representation, but again I don't know it for a fact.

Click to expand...

RCW 9.41.270 must be narrowly construed such that the phrase “warrants alarm for the safety others” applies only to conduct that poses a threat to others, thus giving the phrase a narrow and definite focus. State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 268 (1984)(“If a weapon is displayed in a manner, under circumstances and at a time and place so that it poses a threat to another person, such a display would warrant alarm for the safety of another. Thus, narrowly construing the phrase to apply to only conduct that poses a threat to others gives the phrase a narrow and definite focus and saves it from vagueness.”)

amlevin said:

The jury of 6 included gun owners. It's just possible that they, who heard all the evidence, thought the persons actions did warrant alarm.
The difference between "us" and "the jury" is that the jury heard the evidence. We've only heard one side. Even the attorney who received a copy of the transcript has apparently lost interest.

Click to expand...

It's also possible that the jury instructions did not properly educate the jurors about the unlawful display law and the exceptions to the law (I've seen it happen in a .270 conviction -- which was later overturned on appeal). I have also seen the situation where the judge "guided" the trial so as to convict the carrier. The way a judge rules on objections can "guide" a case to a conviction or non-conviction (hence the source of the phrase, "I was railroaded into jail by the judge.").

And, yes, sometimes the defense attorney doesn't understand the law, the relevant case law, and their significance. That is simply ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC is a basis for appeal in its own right). No conviction for unlawful display where the weapon is holstered and not being handled or otherwise having attention drawn to it by the carrier should stand. In these situations, the unlawful display conviction should be challenged on constitutional bases.

rapgood said:

In these situations, the unlawful display conviction should be challenged on constitutional bases.

Click to expand...

Agreed with your whole post, some just don't want jurors to be fully informed.

I also will donate and solicit your service to appeal this decision if you were so inclined. Although there would have to be other donors since I am fairly poor.......

amlevin said:

The jury of 6 included gun owners. It's just possible that they, who heard all the evidence, thought the persons actions did warrant alarm.

The difference between "us" and "the jury" is that the jury heard the evidence. We've only heard one side. Even the attorney who received a copy of the transcript has apparently lost interest.

Click to expand...

Don't start with that old argument again. Most of your average "gun owners" have no clue of their own "rights", so how could I expect them to have any clue of mine when it comes to carry, especially since most don't carry.

If you want to talk about alarm, the original judge that heard the case was so alarmed that he threw the case out. People seem to want to gloss over that fact when they want to use this case as some sort of example.

FMCDH said:

Don't start with that old argument again. Most of your average "gun owners" have no clue of their own "rights", so how could I expect them to have any clue of mine when it comes to carry, especially since most don't carry.

If you want to talk about alarm, the original judge that heard the case was so alarmed that he threw the case out. People seem to want to gloss over that fact when they want to use this case as some sort of example.

Click to expand...

Very good point I forgot about that.

So what are the motives of the prosecutor of continue prosecution? Me thinks he wants to set a precedent against OC. and like a rabid dog went after it. Refusing to allow Josh to have a hearing based on legalities only without a jury, I wonder too how he knew he could convince a jury of the illegality of something legal? Maybe by practice?

sudden valley gunner said:

Agreed with your whole post, some just don't want jurors to be fully informed.

I also will donate and solicit your service to appeal this decision if you were so inclined. Although there would have to be other donors since I am fairly poor.......

Click to expand...

I am willing to consider the case for appeal... if an appeal is still available. There are time limits on filing notices of appeal (usuall 10 days, unless it's the state appealing, in which case they have 30 days). As I recall (assuming that you are talking about Josh's case), the appellate court upheld the conviction. The recourse then is to ask the Washington State Supreme Court to hear the case (unless it's too late for that). In any event, the defendant would need to contact me directly. I am always interested in considering .270 convictions.

rapgood said:

I am willing to consider the case for appeal... if an appeal is still available. There are time limits on filing notices of appeal (usuall 10 days, unless it's the state appealing, in which case they have 30 days). As I recall (assuming that you are talking about Josh's case), the appellate court upheld the conviction. The recourse then is to ask the Washington State Supreme Court to hear the case (unless it's too late for that). In any event, the defendant would need to contact me directly. I am always interested in considering .270 convictions.

Click to expand...

Been a long time since there were court dates....darn...I don't think Josh has been around for awhile.

rapgood said:

I am willing to consider the case for appeal... if an appeal is still available. There are time limits on filing notices of appeal (usuall 10 days, unless it's the state appealing, in which case they have 30 days). As I recall (assuming that you are talking about Josh's case), the appellate court upheld the conviction. The recourse then is to ask the Washington State Supreme Court to hear the case (unless it's too late for that). In any event, the defendant would need to contact me directly. I am always interested in considering .270 convictions.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Been a long time since there were court dates....darn...I don't think Josh has been around for awhile.

Click to expand...

The last one was in mid September 2012 and the last time I heard from a news reporter on this the Judge had not written the ruling yet, but have not heard nothing for a couple of months.

Latest information I could find.

Case Number: 435551
Filing Date: 06-12-2012
Coa, Division Ii

Event Date Event Description Action
06-12-12 Affidavit of Service Filed
06-12-12 Filing fee Filed
06-12-12 Notice of Discretionary Review Filed
06-15-12 Case Received and Pending Status Changed
06-19-12 Motion to Dismiss (untimely Filg Appeal) Filed
06-19-12 Letter Sent by Court
06-27-12 Motion to Extend Time to File Filed
07-06-12 Ruling on Motions Filed
07-09-12 Perfection Letter Sent by Court
07-23-12 D/r Supr Decision on Rvw Frm Crt Lim Jrd Filed
08-06-12 Response to Motion for Discretionary Review Filed
08-13-12 Reply to Response Filed
08-14-12 Motion for Amended brief Filed
08-15-12 Notice of Change of Address Filed
08-15-12 Ruling on Motions Filed
08-20-12 Other filing Filed
09-10-12 Ruling terminating Review Filed
09-10-12 Decision Filed Status Changed
10-17-12 Certificate of Finality Filed
10-17-12 Disposed Status Changed