Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: RCW 9.41.270

  1. #1
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, 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 intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

    The above is the part that seems to cause all the trouble because certain people insist on inferring that if only one person is "alarmed" then the open carrier is in violation of .270. Much of the law, from what I understand is based on the perceptions of reasonable people. Key word is reasonable.

    We've probably all seen someone from the tinfoil hat brigade, probably around 1st and Pike in Seattle, talking to people who aren't there and avoiding the goofy rays from the Mother Ship. I say that if Officer Olsen, just to pick a name at random, says that anyone being alarmed proves violation of .270, then officer Olsen would let the guy in the tinfoil hat determine his concept of reality. People in full control of their faculties don't let other people determine reality for them. This is known in some circles as common sense.

    Im not sure the statute needs to be reworded. A principle of law that depends on common sense cannot function at the street level if cops refuse to think. Training bulletins help with this but we'll never avoid the need for common sense.

    Mainsail, I expect you to remind us of WA vs Cassad. Anyone else?

    MD

  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Right, I know there is case law stating that a citizen openly carrying a weapon securely in a holster is NOT sufficient cause for alarm, and therefore does not constitute a breach of .270. We've discussed several times here that .270 needs to be reworded to something less ambiguous, due to people misinterpreting the statement "warrants alarm" to mean something it doesn't, however, I don't think anyone came to a conclusion as to what that rewording should say.....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    ..."warrants alarm" and "causes alarm" are two completely separate things.

    I might be alarmed when someone in front of me starts smoking on the sidewalk. But so long as he is obeying the parameters set forth in the RCW's (such as staying 25ft. away from public building entrances, etc...) I have the right to be offended, or even "alarmed" for my personal health, due to second hand smoke, but I have no legal recourse. I'm in public, and so long as that person is operating within the bounds of the law, I can't really say much, other than I personally disapprove.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tukwila, Washington, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    Your comments are correct. I had a incident today @ my morning coffee hour where I meet up with the same guys for the past 15 years. The first patron to enter the restaurant today was a black man who has been their several times before and from past experiences I just new something was going to happen. He ordered his food, went up to the kitchen counter made some changes to the order with the cook. ate part of his order and asked for a to go box. When it came time for him to pay the bill the **** hit the fan. He was irrational, disrespectful, talking loud to the owner about how much he was charged. I happened to notice he was wearing a BRACELET on his ankle this time, had not noticed it before, but this went on for 5 to 8 min and believe me I had all I could do not to get involved. I asked the owner why do you still allow him in the restaurant. His answer was from a Christian standpoint such as "FOR THE GRACE OF GOD THEIR GO I". I told him that God only gave us 2 cheeks to turn and this was the 4th or 5th situation I and my friends had witnessed. Oh well just thought I would vent. Thanks for your post

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    We've probably all seen someone from the tinfoil hat brigade, probably around 1st and Pike in Seattle, talking to people who aren't there and avoiding the goofy rays from the Mother Ship.
    People wearing tinfoil hats certainly warrant alarm as far as I am concerned. Maybe the state will someday declare these non-ferrous beanies weapons:celebrate
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Would a tinfoil OC beanie help our cause?:celebrate

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Isn't it discriminating against those who choose to wear metal hats to charactarize them as loonies? Surely these people have as many, if not more rights than those of us who do not hear the voices or mind control sattelites! :P

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Isn't it discriminating against those who choose to wear metal hats to charactarize them as loonies? Surely these people have as many, if not more rights than those of us who do not hear the voices or mind control sattelites! :P
    If they would just share the "frequencies" maybe we could listen in.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Isn't it discriminating against those who choose to wear metal hats to charactarize them as loonies? Surely these people have as many, if not more rights than those of us who do not hear the voices or mind control sattelites! :P
    Actually research has shown that tinfoil hats amplify the mind control rays.

    http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •