Why do I say this? Simple... Because, quite frankly, the written law on OC is vague, and there is almost no case law on the subject, so it remains vague.
As an example, last I heard anyway, a guy in Vancouver was convicted for OC' ing near a store that had been robbed at gun point the day before. That may be overturned by now, or in the future, but even if it is, he will never get back the years of headaches it caused him.
I respectfully disagree. I believe that the case law on open carry in Washington (
vis-a-vis RCW 9.41.270) is quite clear, as
slapmonkey describes briefly above and as I address below. (BTW - The last I checked, Josh's conviction in Vancouver was not overturned. Too bad, and someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. I would have liked to argue that appeal.)
State v Casad isn't published so it doesn't help.
Chan v Seattle is focused more on preemption and really doesn't flesh out OC much at all.
State v Spencer is frustrating because while it does basically say OC is definitely legal, it also basically amounts to saying that your OC intent is less important than others perception of your intent. Thus actually reinforcing my point that if others think your manner of carry warrants alarm then you may be in trouble regardless. It also makes it clear that the state believes OC of larger and "scary looking" firearms is less legal than that of smaller "safe looking" firearms.
State v. Maciolek actually narrowly constrains what "warrants alarm" means. It's just that many LEOs and a disheartening number of courts just plain don't like the holding in that case.
One thing here that is very important, the difference between "Warrants" alarm and "Causes" alarm.
If someone freaks out every time they see a tennis ball, is that a reasonable fear? I would say NO. therefore it is "causing" alarm. On the other hand if that was a reasonable fear, then it could be "Warranting" alarm.
Big difference.
Although
Casad is an unpublished opinion, the reasoning by that court is instructive. There, the court observed that, and as Casad's attorney argued, seeing someone walking down the street with a rifle might be "shocking," but without more, it doesn't rise to "warranting alarm." This is, essentially, what the
Maciolek court held (just not in so many words).
Court ruling, No. 35333-4-II State v. Casad.
Stave v. Casad
The court found that “several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We Agree. 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.”
Court ruling, 101 Wn.2d 259, STATE v. MACIOLEK, the court held:
State v. Maciolek
"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."
Court ruling, 75 Wn. App. 118, State v. Spencer (Not Published):
State v. Spencer
The court found that the 9.41.270 statue (referenced in Section 9, as its authority), “only prohibits the carrying or displaying of weapons when objective circumstances would warrant alarm in a reasonable person.” Further it states, “the Legislature’s use of the word ‘warrants’ in the statue implies that there must be a sufficient objective basis for the alarm, i.e., circumstances must be such that a reasonable person would be alarmed.”
(actually, Spencer
is a published opinion).
The case closest to being on point with the open carry of an "assault rifle" is
Spencer where Mr. Spencer was walking in a residential neighborhood at night while carrying his rifle in a “hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.” Similarly, in
State v. Baggett, Mr. Baggett held a rifle at hip level, with the barrel pointing toward a police officer (what an idiot).
State v. Baggett,103 Wn. App. 564, 566 (2000).
In both cases, the defendants did something more than merely carry the weapons. I submit that the mere carry of a slung AR pistol, while perhaps shocking to some, is perfectly legal in Washington.
If the OP gets arrested for merely carrying a slung weapon not in hand, I'll defend him without fee. That said, I discourage it as that type of carry simply invites trouble. Stick to a holstered weapon.
However, I do believe that this site is the appropriate place to pose the question. We all learn from the dialogue by expanding the scope of our focus in new directions related to the stated forum intent.
