How would you understand this RCW?

fire suppressor · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

This is ment as a discussion

RCW 9.41.270 – Weapons Apparently Capable
Of Producing Bodily Harm ...

(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

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?

AWDstylez · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

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.

AWDstylez · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

But is that how it's practiced, or is that just how it's supposed to be?

Dr. Fresh · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

Just curious, why post this in two spots?

But yeah, the two court cases I was telling you about on Facebook are in the post above this one. I couldn't remember what they were called.

AWDstylez · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

That is how it is practiced in Washington state. See State v. Casad and State v. Spencer:

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=9

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=25

You guys are lucky.

fire suppressor · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:

Just curious, why post this in two spots?

But yeah, the two court cases I was telling you about on Facebook are in the post above this one. I couldn't remember what they were called.

The reason for posting in both the general board and the Washington board is I was curious of the differences thoughts and responses of Washington state residence vs non. Keep in mind I said this is ment to be a discussion I was not asking a question. I was unaware of previous discussions and thought it could be a interesting topic

Task Force 16 · Jun 9, 2009

imported post

Someone with a very creative imagination might be able (and have - Brady Bunch)to concoct an argument that merely the apperarance of a holstered handgun would be in violation of this statute.

Those same people might be able to make a case against their own shaddow, for stalking, too.

I think what this particular statute is missing is how the "manner, under circumstances" is percieved. It would be more helpful if it read as follows.

".... manner and/orunder circumstances percieved by a reasonable minded person....."

Heck,waving a bullfrog in some peoples face can be considered "intimidating" and possibly cause bodily harm (when they panic and try to flee).

arentol · Jun 10, 2009

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Heck,waving a bullfrog in some peoples face can be considered "intimidating" and possibly cause bodily harm (when they panic and try to flee).

I prefer the Pickle Lady example.

There was a woman on Oprah a while back that was deathly afraid of pickles. Even a picture of a pickle would panic this woman and send her over the edge.

Do pickles CAUSE alarm for this woman? Yes. Do they WARRANT alarm for anyone, including her? Of course not.

Similarly, a firearm in a holster may CAUSE alarm in some people who are deathly afraid of firearms, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the firearm WARRANTS alarm.

Task Force 16 · Jun 10, 2009

imported post

arentol wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Heck,waving a bullfrog in some peoples face can be considered "intimidating" and possibly cause bodily harm (when they panic and try to flee).

Click to expand...

I prefer the Pickle Lady example.

There was a woman on Oprah a while back that was deathly afraid of pickles. Even a picture of a pickle would panic this woman and send her over the edge.

Do pickles CAUSE alarm for this woman? Yes. Do they WARRANT alarm for anyone, including her? Of course not.

Similarly, a firearm in a holster may CAUSE alarm in some people who are deathly afraid of firearms, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the firearm WARRANTS alarm.

Geeesh, and they call us gun toters psycho's? :?

Alexcabbie · Jun 15, 2009

imported post

Yeah "HighPitch Eric" on the Howars Stern show felt the same way about fish. Some people have a cold solder joint in their wiring.

Others are just plain nitwits, when they get together it's a real numbskull session. I once had a guy get all up in my face telling me that my P.38, carried on my hip, was "scaring" him He was so scared he loudly called the cops, following me all the way telling them where I was and where I was headed. And about 2 paces behind me to boot. When the cops got there they basically ascertained that I had not threatened the idiot and then asked him, if he was so damned "scared" why he kept doing things that would pi$$ a reasonable man off. Then, he started yelling at the cop that he wanted the cop's "badge number" so he could "report" the cop for failing to do his duty. The cops (by then there were about five of them) told me I was free to go. As I left the wimp was still saying "I DEMAND that you arrest him!" and the cops were saying "nothing illegal" "But you didnt check his PERMIT!" "don't need one in Virginia" on and on. I didn't stick around, and haven't seen the dude since either. Probably some new resident of DC who doesn't know what the Potomac River signifies.

WheelGun · Jun 15, 2009

imported post

I was up in Maine deep in the 'Hundred Mile Wilderness' with my wife on a two-week long hiking trip.A granola-head hiker and his skinny girlfriend passed us in the opposite direction in the absolute middle of nowhere. He voiced his objection to me carrying a handgun. It was intimidating him. Of course, not only was I calm, but I was laughing inside about how incredibly stupid the guy was.

Alexcabbie · Jun 15, 2009

imported post

Certainly wasn't "intimiating" him from running his hippie yap, was it?

Task Force 16 · Jun 15, 2009

imported post

I'e only seen one person actually be terrified of a gun. I'm talkin' extreme histeria.

When I was a kid, around 10 or so, both my parents worked. Since there were 5 of us kids at the time (me being the oldest) we had a baby sitter until mom got home. I had one of those Matel 6 shooters that looked like a real Colt .45 but smaller with a holster. I go walking through the house twirling my 6 gun on my finger and doing some of that trick handling stuff, when I came up on the baby sitter, who was looking out the front door. when she turned around and saw that toy gun in my hand she went bonkers. She started screeming :what:"GET THAT THING AWAY FROM ME!!!!!":what:She was so terrified that she started crying and since she pretty much had her back to a wall, I think she would have climbed it if she could. I tried to tell her it was only a toy, but that didn't matter to her. As far as she was concerned it might have well been the Chain Saw Killer. The only thing I could do was leave the room with the toy gun.

Years later we learned that this womans family had a history of not "being all there".

I've never run accross anyone with that severe a case of hoplophobia again.

Nutczak · Jun 16, 2009

imported post

The way I read that law, is that you must purposefully be holdng the supposed weapon in a threatening manner (basic brandishing) to be considered breaking the law.

lets pick this paragraph apart a little by pulling out the fluff, and replace several words with very few.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry,ANYTHINGIN A THREATENING MANNERthat warrants alarm for the safety of other persons"

if someone were to have a swastika tattoo visible on their skin, it may "cause alarm" in some people. While others may see a shaved head as a reason to be alarmed. Since both of those examples are covered by another protected right (1A) I do not see how this paragraph of law can be enforcable!

So if you are watching a baseball game, and the batter carries a bat to the plate, would that also be considered a dangerous weapon at that point in time becuase people have been beaten to death with a baseball bat?

What if someone has a pet snake, Would this law also apply to them if someone feels threatened by the mere presence of a snake? Now if they were chasing a parson with the snake, or swinging it above their head trying to strike another person, I could see this being an enforcable law.

I am not a lawyer, but! lets use a little common sense here. "The right to keep and bear arms" is a constitutionally potected right in most states according to their constitution.

Was this statute pulled from a state book, or a city book? Several states also have preemption to discourage localities from having a patchwork of goofily worded laws like this. Does the state in question have a preemption statute?

Jonesy · Jun 16, 2009

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

He is famous for being wrong.

Dr. Fresh · Jun 16, 2009

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

The way I read that law, is that you must purposefully be holdng the supposed weapon in a threatening manner (basic brandishing) to be considered breaking the law.

lets pick this paragraph apart a little by pulling out the fluff, and replace several words with very few.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry,ANYTHINGIN A THREATENING MANNERthat warrants alarm for the safety of other persons"

if someone were to have a swastika tattoo visible on their skin, it may "cause alarm" in some people. While others may see a shaved head as a reason to be alarmed. Since both of those examples are covered by another protected right (1A) I do not see how this paragraph of law can be enforcable!

So if you are watching a baseball game, and the batter carries a bat to the plate, would that also be considered a dangerous weapon at that point in time becuase people have been beaten to death with a baseball bat?

What if someone has a pet snake, Would this law also apply to them if someone feels threatened by the mere presence of a snake? Now if they were chasing a parson with the snake, or swinging it above their head trying to strike another person, I could see this being an enforcable law.

I am not a lawyer, but! lets use a little common sense here. "The right to keep and bear arms" is a constitutionally potected right in most states according to their constitution.

Was this statute pulled from a state book, or a city book? Several states also have preemption to discourage localities from having a patchwork of goofily worded laws like this. Does the state in question have a preemption statute?

It's a state law, and yes, Washington has preemption.

Alexcabbie · Jun 17, 2009

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

I'e only seen one person actually be terrified of a gun. I'm talkin' extreme histeria.

When I was a kid, around 10 or so, both my parents worked. Since there were 5 of us kids at the time (me being the oldest) we had a baby sitter until mom got home. I had one of those Matel 6 shooters that looked like a real Colt .45 but smaller with a holster. I go walking through the house twirling my 6 gun on my finger and doing some of that trick handling stuff, when I came up on the baby sitter, who was looking out the front door. when she turned around and saw that toy gun in my hand she went bonkers. She started screeming :what:"GET THAT THING AWAY FROM ME!!!!!":what:She was so terrified that she started crying and since she pretty much had her back to a wall, I think she would have climbed it if she could. I tried to tell her it was only a toy, but that didn't matter to her. As far as she was concerned it might have well been the Chain Saw Killer. The only thing I could do was leave the room with the toy gun.

Years later we learned that this womans family had a history of not "being all there".

I've never run accross anyone with that severe a case of hoplophobia again.

Man alive. Did your folks leave you with that nutty woman after that day? :uhoh: Yeeesh.

Task Force 16 · Jun 17, 2009

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

I'e only seen one person actually be terrified of a gun. I'm talkin' extreme histeria.

When I was a kid, around 10 or so, both my parents worked. Since there were 5 of us kids at the time (me being the oldest) we had a baby sitter until mom got home. I had one of those Matel 6 shooters that looked like a real Colt .45 but smaller with a holster. I go walking through the house twirling my 6 gun on my finger and doing some of that trick handling stuff, when I came up on the baby sitter, who was looking out the front door. when she turned around and saw that toy gun in my hand she went bonkers. She started screeming :what:"GET THAT THING AWAY FROM ME!!!!!":what:She was so terrified that she started crying and since she pretty much had her back to a wall, I think she would have climbed it if she could. I tried to tell her it was only a toy, but that didn't matter to her. As far as she was concerned it might have well been the Chain Saw Killer. The only thing I could do was leave the room with the toy gun.

Years later we learned that this womans family had a history of not "being all there".

I've never run accross anyone with that severe a case of hoplophobia again.

Click to expand...

Man alive. Did your folks leave you with that nutty woman after that day? :uhoh: Yeeesh.

She didn't last long. It wasn't that she was psychotic or anything like that. She was just dumb.

The thing was, she couldn't explain why she was so terrifiedby the sight of a gun. Maybe it was those magical properties they have. :uhoh:

shad0wfax · Aug 9, 2009

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

That is how it is practiced in Washington state. See State v. Casad and State v. Spencer:

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=9

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=25

Spencer is published and therefore a useful case to mention.

Casad is not published and therefore worth absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint. It can't be cited in court. A judge can rule in a different case completely contrary to Casad and be 100% within their right to do so. Casad set no precedent and since it established nothing "new" it is worth absolutely nothing to anyone except Gregory Casad himself.

Carnivore · Aug 10, 2009

imported post

fire suppressor wrote:

This is ment as a discussion

RCW 9.41.270 – Weapons Apparently Capable
Of Producing Bodily Harm ...

(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

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?

What I read is that even so much as a pair of nail clippers could get the cops called out on ya..

How would you understand this RCW?

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member