John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
How about (in exclusions):
How about (in exclusions):
-
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.
-
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.
Washington State laws - time to go on the offensive
- Thread starter John Hardin
- Start date
gregma
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
That means that you can have your sidearm in it's holster, and then point the sidearm (while still in the holster) at someone and not be guilty of 9.41.270. Remember, you can fire many sidearms while in a holster.
Another one would be taking the sidearm, and wrapping a belt around it. Technically it would meet this exclusion and still be quite usable.
John Hardin wrote:
That works. One caveat that the other side might argue...
That means that you can have your sidearm in it's holster, and then point the sidearm (while still in the holster) at someone and not be guilty of 9.41.270. Remember, you can fire many sidearms while in a holster.
Another one would be taking the sidearm, and wrapping a belt around it. Technically it would meet this exclusion and still be quite usable.
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
gregma wrote:
"carried openly in a holster or sheath or worn openly under a belt"?
Or...
"(f) Any lawfully-possessed firearm or knife being worn openly in a holster or sheath or under a belt, so long as it is being worn in the holster or sheath or under the belt." ?
gregma wrote:
Point the firearm at someone and I think it becomes assault, which 9.41.270 doesn't address.
"carried openly in a holster or sheath or worn openly under a belt"?
Or...
"(f) Any lawfully-possessed firearm or knife being worn openly in a holster or sheath or under a belt, so long as it is being worn in the holster or sheath or under the belt." ?
thebastidge
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
Not necessarily- in the waistband is not necessarily concealed, nor is in a pocket if it sticks out. I have seen people with semi-autos in their back pocket with the butt out.
I'm just saying, along with others, don't define how one has to carry it, that is the slippery slope. Mississippi, for example, considers a holster to be concealing a pistol in it. We have explicitly mentioned and discounted that in our laws. But the basic goal should be first and foremost that we promote awareness and acceptanceof the individual's right to be armed, whether that is openly, concealed, with pink pistols or evil black rifles.
John Hardin wrote:
Not necessarily- in the waistband is not necessarily concealed, nor is in a pocket if it sticks out. I have seen people with semi-autos in their back pocket with the butt out.
I'm just saying, along with others, don't define how one has to carry it, that is the slippery slope. Mississippi, for example, considers a holster to be concealing a pistol in it. We have explicitly mentioned and discounted that in our laws. But the basic goal should be first and foremost that we promote awareness and acceptanceof the individual's right to be armed, whether that is openly, concealed, with pink pistols or evil black rifles.
GreatWhiteLlama
Regular Member
imported post
Before too many modifications are made, remember that "Alarm" is the only thing that has been attempted to be used against us. Removing too much may create an unacceptably large loophole in the eyes of those who will decide whether or not to modify the existing law.
Also, section "F" does not mention a sling. Are you attempting to make it illegal for someone to carry a riffle on their back?
Before too many modifications are made, remember that "Alarm" is the only thing that has been attempted to be used against us. Removing too much may create an unacceptably large loophole in the eyes of those who will decide whether or not to modify the existing law.
Also, section "F" does not mention a sling. Are you attempting to make it illegal for someone to carry a riffle on their back?
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
T-RaV wrote:
That is, however, a valid concern - that just because a given open carry method isn't explicitly exempted it is assumed to be prohibited. That's one good argument against adding subsection (3)(f) at all.
T-RaV wrote:
That was why my initial proposed changes were so limited - to make them palatable to legislators yet still effective. Do you have something in mind for a middle ground?
Not in the least, just trying to make explicit that open carry is permitted. Suspenders and belt, if you will, since the term "carry" has also been removed from subsection (1).
That is, however, a valid concern - that just because a given open carry method isn't explicitly exempted it is assumed to be prohibited. That's one good argument against adding subsection (3)(f) at all.
gregma
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Perhaps one thing that would help is to try and understand what the purpose is for 9.41.270? Why is it important to have at all? What is it trying to accomplish? What exactly is it trying to make illegal? We know how it's being misused, does it really even need to exist? What would be lost by repealing it all together?
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
gregma wrote
gregma wrote
... threats, coercion and intimidation using a weapon but that don't rise to the level of actual assault?
gregma
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
Still rather convoluted...
John Hardin wrote:
Ok. Then I think either of these two would be acceptable.
Still rather convoluted...
I believe more define and less chance of "mis-interpretation"...
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
gregma wrote:
gregma wrote:
How about:
I think the "negligent disregard for the immediate safety" part should be retained.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
The more and more I think about it, the more I think this law needs to be flat out repealed.
Does Oregon have a similar law? It doesn't. It doesn't really need it.
The more and more I think about it, the more I think this law needs to be flat out repealed.
Does Oregon have a similar law? It doesn't. It doesn't really need it.
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Do you think that's an achievable goal? I'd love to see that happen, but I think making some changes that clarify it is an approach more likely to actually succeed.
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
Okay, all; bill number four added:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_suppressor.txt
Okay, all; bill number four added:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_suppressor.txt
just_a_car
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Excellent write-up there, JH!
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
Does anybody know whether WA law explicitly covers LEO demands for identification? I've been trolling the RCWs but nothing promising is showing up.
Do we have anything similar to the OH law that states:
Does anybody know whether WA law explicitly covers LEO demands for identification? I've been trolling the RCWs but nothing promising is showing up.
Do we have anything similar to the OH law that states:
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
To my knowledge the only laws we have that require ID to be presented upon demand are under the motor vehicle statues.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.020
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.64.070
John Hardin wrote:
To my knowledge the only laws we have that require ID to be presented upon demand are under the motor vehicle statues.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.020
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.64.070
sccrref
Regular Member
imported post
joeroket wrote:
joeroket wrote:
I would suggest not changing this. If it is not in thestatutes as being illegal, it is therefore legal. One should not be required to provide information on themselves just because LEOs are trolling for information. I agree with the laws under the motor vehicle statutes. If you are operating or in charge of the vehicle you should be required to provide identifiaction if asked by LEO. If you are not in a motor vehicle and are minding your own business committing no other crimes, you should not be required to identify yourself just because you are asked to do so. Just my .01.
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
sccrref wrote:
As much as I dislike the idea that we need laws that enumerate our rights, I would feel safer having a statute to quote saying that there is no requirement to produce ID on request except when operating a motor vehicle, and that you cannot be detained or arrested for refusing to produce ID on demand except when operating a motor vehicle.
When told "You must show me your ID" (Ihre papieren bitte!) by an officer it would be more effective to say "Per RCW 9.xx.xx I have no obligation to provide you with ID as I am not operating a motor vehicle at this time", rather than "according to which law?"
sccrref wrote:
I agree. I'm not proposing changing those laws, they are reasonable. However...
As much as I dislike the idea that we need laws that enumerate our rights, I would feel safer having a statute to quote saying that there is no requirement to produce ID on request except when operating a motor vehicle, and that you cannot be detained or arrested for refusing to produce ID on demand except when operating a motor vehicle.
When told "You must show me your ID" (Ihre papieren bitte!) by an officer it would be more effective to say "Per RCW 9.xx.xx I have no obligation to provide you with ID as I am not operating a motor vehicle at this time", rather than "according to which law?"
gregma
Regular Member
imported post
John Hardin wrote:
"Please inform me what law states I must show you ID?"
Then go from there depending on their answer.
John Hardin wrote:
Is there a problem with just throwing it back on the LEO by stating:
"Please inform me what law states I must show you ID?"
Then go from there depending on their answer.
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
gregma wrote:
gregma wrote:
It's weaker than saying "This explicit law says no, I do not need to show you my ID."