An additional related point to the above section:Somebody could construe "carry, exhibit, display" to refer to the simple act of open carry (type A definition). However, this definition would be incorrect. It would mean that the simple act of "bearing arms in defense of himself, or the state" would constitute intent to intimidate or warrant alarm and thus be illegal. The Washington Constitution doesn't affirm concealed carry rights, only the right to "bear" arms, which by the process of elimination means to open carry. Thus, if the type A definition held, RCW 9.41.270 would be unconstitutional on its face.
If 9.41.270 was intended to outlaw type A then why is there a qualifying statement at all?
If ALL carry and display of firearms and other weapons was intended to be illegal then wouldn't section 1 of the statute just read:
By adding the qualifying phrase the senate made it clear that they intended for it to be entirely legal for weapons to be openly carried in a reasonable and prudent manner.(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.