fire suppressor wrote:
Could you then argue the simple appearance of a person minding there own business but with an exposed firearm in a holster could be in violation of this RCW if someone truly felt afraid of there life by the simple presence of it? and/or could a firearm in a holster also be consider brandishing a weapon?
Absolutely, to all of the above, and they need not be afraid for their lives, but merely afraid at all. In fact, exposed firearms are treated exactly that way around here and the person with the exposed firearm is charged with a breech of peace. OC is legal here, but you better make damn sure it doesn't scare anyone.
Sorry, AWDstylez, but you are absolutely wrong. In Washington state:
This has been discussed at length.
The answer toOP's questions are no and no.
The simple presence of a firearm does not WARRANT alarm. It does not matter if it CAUSES alarm, that is not what the statute says. The statute states WARRANTS alarm.
A firearm carried in a holster is not being displayed in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate.
Additionally, because of the "AND" in the statute, ALL of the other elements must be met as well, to wit:
under circumstances and at a time and place. I other words, if you are engaged in a normal activicty at a time and place that is normal for that activity, neither of those elements have been met.
So, eating dinner does not meet the requirement of "under circumstances", in a restaurant does not meet the requirement of "at a time and place", in a holster does not meet the requirement of "intent to intimidate" or "WARRANTS alarm".
Likewise, being present on a Washington State ferry does not meet "under circumstances", standing in the passenger lounge does not meet the requirement of "at a time and place", and the same for in a holster is not "intent to intimidate" nor "WARRANTS alarm", even though there may be 100 screaming, terrified sheeple around you.