Washington State laws - time to go on the offensive

imported post

Hey, folks.

I've been pestering my state rep. (Al O'Brien, a fairly gun-friendly democrat) for a couple of years to sponsor legislation protecting employees having firearms in their car. He's been reluctant to, stating to me he'd rather focus on keeping the bad legislation out.

Well, I'm of the opinion that we should put the anti's on the defensive for a change, and I am going to ask him to sponsor the following five pieces of legislation:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_open_carry.txt

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_UW.txt

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_suppressor.txt

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt

...and I'm looking for your help.

Please read them, and if you have any suggestions for improvements (especially if you have legal experience) let me know. My email address is jhardin@impsec.org

Please ask your representatives to sponsor or co-sponsor them this year (legislative year 2008), regardless of which legislative district you live in. If our legislators see enough interest maybe something positive will happen this legislative session (as opposed to just the "not negative" defensive victories we've been seeing lately). And having a lot of co-sponsors can't hurt!

If you participate in other forums or groups (e.g. Glock Talk) where there's a place to discuss Washington State firearms issues, mention this.

If you have any connections to the more formal firearms rights advocacy organizations, mention these proposals to them. I've asked the NRA-ILA to take a look before and in response got a deafening silence, but maybe they'd listen if a few hundred members spoke up.

Individually we can be ignored, so let's all speak up together!

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

Hey, folks.

I've been pestering my state rep. (Al O'Brien, a fairly gun-friendly democrat) for a couple of years to sponsor legislation protecting employees having firearms in their car. He's been reluctant to, stating to me he'd rather focus on keeping the bad legislation out.

Well, I'm of the opinion that we should put the anti's on the defensive for a change, and I am going to ask him to sponsor the following three pieces of legislation:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_open_carry.txt

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_UW.txt

...and I'm looking for your help.

Please read them, and if you have any suggestions for improvements (especially if you have legal experience) let me know. My email address is jhardin@impsec.org

Please ask your representatives to sponsor or co-sponsor them this year, regardless of which legislative district you live in. If our legislators see enough interest maybe something positive will happen this legislative session (as opposed to just the "not negative" defensive victories we've been seeing lately). And having a lot of co-sponsors can't hurt!

If you participate in other forums or groups (e.g. Glock Talk) where there's a place to discuss Washington State firearms issues, mention this.

If you have any connections to the more formal firearms rights advocacy organizations, mention these proposals to them. I've asked the NRA-ILA to take a look before and in response got a deafening silence, but maybe they'd listen if a few hundred members spoke up.

Individually we can be ignored, so let's all speak up together!

Click to expand...

If you MUST re-write 9.41.270 rather than just repeal it, I would suggest:

It shall be unlawful for an person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm with specific intent to threaten, harass, intimidate, or coerce another person or persons without legal justification for doing so.

Remove "alarm", remove "brandish".

imported post

gregma wrote:

remove "brandish".

Click to expand...

Why remove "brandish"? I'd rather have "brandish" in there than "carry"...

And "alarm for immediate safety of others" is different from "alarm for safety of others" - at least it seems so to me; think of some moron waving a pistol around asking for a ND but not intending any Evil Deeds. But I can understand the desire for that entire clause to go away.

Adding the "threaten, ..." - what do you think now?

imported post

I think the reason for removing brandish is that in some places, OC is considered brandishing and so is accidentilly showing if you're CCing. That is not currently illegal in WA State and I'd rather it not become so.

[Edit: grammar]

imported post

I think carry is a better word to use than brandish. I would rather not get in trouble for my gun peaking out when I am cc'ing. Also I think the term "warrants alarm" needs to be removed as gregma has written. Those are the two ambigious wordings of the current law that need to go.

imported post

... the statutory definition of "brandish," which means "to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4)

Click to expand...

Huh. And here I thought "brandish" meant to have it clearly visible in your hand.

Okay, I'll buy that change.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

gregma wrote:

remove "brandish".

Click to expand...

Why remove "brandish"? I'd rather have "brandish" in there than "carry"...

And "alarm for immediate safety of others" is different from "alarm for safety of others" - at least it seems so to me; think of some moron waving a pistol around asking for a ND but not intending any Evil Deeds. But I can understand the desire for that entire clause to go away.

Adding the "threaten, ..." - what do you think now?

Click to expand...

I think others have covered this quite well, but I"ll add my obligatory 2 cents

Why remove brandish? Mainly because it can be mis-interpreted quite easily by Law Enforcement to harass those open carrying. Granted "Brandish" has a well defined statutory definition, but we are out on the streets dealing with minimally trained LEO's who could give a rats behind about statutory things.

I do agree with "carry" also being a not-well defined word and should be removed also.

It shall be unlawful for an person to exhibit, display, or draw any weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm with specific intent to threaten, harass, intimidate, or coerce another person or persons without legal justification for doing so.

Click to expand...

With the "carry" removed.

As far as "Alarm", that is a terrible word and can be interpreted by the beat cop to mean anything he wants it to mean. Anyone can make "alarm" mean simply having a firearm. Every single instance I've seen of police threatening OC'ers they have used the word "alarm". Every single one. Leave that in there and not a single thing will change.

imported post

Okay, how about this then?

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 attempt to intimidate, harass, threaten or coerce another person or persons for an unlawful purpose or that manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons.

Click to expand...

"Alarm" is gone, but I'm kind of reluctant to completely give up on that last bit as I still have the image in my head of a moron waving a gun around trying for a ND...

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

Okay, how about this then?

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 attempt to intimidate, harass, threaten or coerce another person or persons for an unlawful purpose or that manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons.

Click to expand...

"Alarm" is gone, but I'm kind of reluctant to completely give up on that last bit as I still have the image in my head of a moron waving a gun around trying for a ND...

Click to expand...

honestly, I don't see that as any better. How about adding an RCW that clearly states that Washington is an Open Carry state.

Such as:

1) It shall be lawful to carry a holstered or slung firearm in plain view at all places not restricted by rcw 9.41.050 (or whatever it was), so long as the weapon is legal to be owned and the carrier may ownsaid weaponunder 9.41.060 (or whatever it is), and provided that the carrier does not gesture threateningly toward the weapon directly threaten or imply threat directly toward an individual or group through words or hostile actions, not including the mear possession of the weapon.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

Okay, how about this then?

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 attempt to intimidate, harass, threaten or coerce another person or persons for an unlawful purpose or that manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons.

Click to expand...

"Alarm" is gone, but I'm kind of reluctant to completely give up on that last bit as I still have the image in my head of a moron waving a gun around trying for a ND...

Click to expand...

It is improved, but still leaves IMHO too much open to interpretation. Do you not think that the first part "display...in a manner...an attempt to threaten" would cover a "moron waving a gun around"? I think just that first part would cover that act just fine. The second the gun leaves the holster, and by waving it around would then be considered "intimidate", and if the gun ever was pointed at anyone in the waving would then add "threaten".

I can't think of a single legitimate unlawful circumstance that would not be covered by leaving out the "immediate safety". Yet that part "wanton disregard", "immediate safety" could easily be mis-interpreted by LEO's against Open Carry to mean just having a gun exposed even in holster.

imported post

I'll be putting in my comments on it soon.

imported post

gregma wrote

Do you not think that the first part "display...in a manner...an attempt to threaten" would cover a "moron waving a gun around"?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't. The "moron waving a gun around" is stupidity, not malice. Though it's possible that this law should not cover unsafe behavior, just malicious behavior.

Also, how about putting "carrying a holstered firearm in open view" into the exclusions in (3) - that would probably simplify the language of (1).

imported post

I wouldn't specify a holster; as carrying in a pocket, fannypack, or tucked into a waistband is no more threatening than in a holster by any objective measure.

As a matter of philosophy, I'm in favour of laws which restrict narrowly, and leave everything else not restricted as legal by default.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

gregma wrote

Do you not think that the first part "display...in a manner...an attempt to threaten" would cover a "moron waving a gun around"?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't. The "moron waving a gun around" is stupidity, not malice. Though it's possible that this law should not cover unsafe behavior, just malicious behavior.

Also, how about putting "carrying a holstered firearm in open view" into the exclusions in (3) - that would probably simplify the language of (1).

Click to expand...

I would say a moron waving a gun around in public would be covered under the following statement in your revision.

"manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons."

It sure the heck would be negligent and unsafe for other persons.

imported post

oops.

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

I wouldn't specify a holster; as carrying in a pocket, fannypack, or tucked into a waistband is no more threatening than in a holster by any objective measure.

Click to expand...

Yes, but those are concealed, and .270 doesn't affect CCW because the people who would be "alarmed" by simply seeing a firearm cannot see a concealed firearm. Right? We're trying to clean this statute up for open carry.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

John Hardin wrote:

gregma wrote

Do you not think that the first part "display...in a manner...an attempt to threaten" would cover a "moron waving a gun around"?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't. The "moron waving a gun around" is stupidity, not malice. Though it's possible that this law should not cover unsafe behavior, just malicious behavior.

Also, how about putting "carrying a holstered firearm in open view" into the exclusions in (3) - that would probably simplify the language of (1).

Click to expand...

I would say a moron waving a gun around in public would be covered under the following statement in your revision.

"manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons."

It sure the heck would be negligent and unsafe for other persons.

Click to expand...

...that's why I changed the "alarm" clause to say that...

I've rearranged the proposal to reflect these discussions, take a look now:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_open_carry.txt

Eagerly awaiting Lonnie's comments...

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

joeroket wrote:

John Hardin wrote:

gregma wrote

Do you not think that the first part "display...in a manner...an attempt to threaten" would cover a "moron waving a gun around"?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't. The "moron waving a gun around" is stupidity, not malice. Though it's possible that this law should not cover unsafe behavior, just malicious behavior.

Also, how about putting "carrying a holstered firearm in open view" into the exclusions in (3) - that would probably simplify the language of (1).

Click to expand...

I would say a moron waving a gun around in public would be covered under the following statement in your revision.

"manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons."

It sure the heck would be negligent and unsafe for other persons.

Click to expand...

...that's why I changed the "alarm" clause to say that...

I've rearranged the proposal to reflect these discussions, take a look now:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_open_carry.txt

Eagerly awaiting Lonnie's comments...

Click to expand...

I'm trying to look at this new proposed law with the mindset of a beat cop who wants to try and use that law to harass someone who is simply open carrying. Ok, for the first part.

manifests an attempt to intimidate, harass, threaten or coerce another person

Click to expand...

Looking at the definition of harass, I can see "To create an unpleasant or hostile situation". Well, to a sheeple, just seeing a firearm would to them create an unpleasant situation. Might want to remove that term. The rest looks good to me and I can't think of a situation where it might be used against us.

Now the second section, which I still think poses a problem for us,

manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons

Click to expand...

I can use that easily to justify an arrest for someone solely open carrying. It would be easy to say that someone open carrying is "manifesting wanton disregard for the immediate safey of a person." Wanton can be interpreted as "causal", "unrestrained", "without regard to". If wanton was not there, that part might be more secure. Then again, negligence can be defined as "careless", and open carrying might be considered "careless". Maybe gross negligence? It's really a tough one. Yes, I know I'm being pedantic, but I'm looking at it from the other side. What can I use against us.

As far as the addition of specifically stating that carrying a firearm in a holster... Then you would have to define holster. Is a belt that had a loop built into it considered a holster? Think "Walker, Texas Ranger" style... Would I recommend it? No. But I wouldn't try to infringe on the right of someone who prefers carrying in that manner. I wouldn't try to define how the firearm must be carried, only that it is legal to carry it visibly on your person.

imported post

gregma wrote

Now the second section, which I still think poses a problem for us,

manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons

Click to expand...

I can use that easily to justify an arrest for someone solely open carrying. It would be easy to say that someone open carrying is "manifesting wanton disregard for the immediate safety of a person."

Click to expand...

I would argue that the word "immediate" contradicts that contention, as simply carrying the weapon does not present an immediate danger to anyone. You have to do something, like take it out of the holster, before it can present an immediate danger.

I'll buy removing "wanton", though. I couldn't locate a good legal definition of the term. That leaves:

manifests negligent disregard for the immediate safety of other persons

Click to expand...

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

gregma wrote

Now the second section, which I still think poses a problem for us,

manifests negligent or wanton disregard for the immediate safety of other persons

Click to expand...

I can use that easily to justify an arrest for someone solely open carrying. It would be easy to say that someone open carrying is "manifesting wanton disregard for the immediate safety of a person."

Click to expand...

I would argue that the word "immediate" contradicts that contention, as simply carrying the weapon does not present an immediate danger to anyone. You have to do something, like take it out of the holster, before it can present an immediate danger.

Click to expand...

I'll go along with that line of thinking.


I'll buy removing "wanton", though. I couldn't locate a good legal definition of the term. That leaves:

manifests negligent disregard for the immediate safety of other persons

Click to expand...

That works for me.