Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: How would you understand this RCW?

  1. #1
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872

    Post 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?
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    181

    Post 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?
    These are the key words.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I would argue that "manifests an intent" and "warrant", along with the use of AND linking the individual phrases in "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place", all point to the fact that this particular section is pointing to the "reasonable man" standard even though it doesn't use that exact phrase.

    I.e. someone's hoplophobia is not nearly enough to overcome our constitutional right to keep and bear arms under section 24 of the state constitution.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    [no reference to THAT Kyle Huff...], Washington, USA
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    I agree with NavyLT and the others have said.. I just want to add this, which is unrelated to the verbiage of RCW 9.41.270 -

    The Washington State Constitution Article I Section 24 says:

    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    link: http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyR...nstitution.htm

    Now, the State of Washington says you can carry a firearm - but the state also says you cannot conceal your firearm unless you have a permit. So, if you cannot openly carry your firearm - and you can only hide it with a permit, in my opinion that violates the Washington State Constitution. You no longer have a right to bare arms if RCW 9.41.270 meant you cannot carry a holstered firearm in open view.

    That is just my opinion though, and I'm not a lawyer. Also, it has been said that I have been wrong in the past.. I don't recall this event.. but, I guess it COULD have happened.. =c )

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Must be slow if this is coming up. Again. See FAQ question #3 in the FAQ's stickied at the top of this forum.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    As another vote to close this discussion once again, I would tend to agree with Navy LT on this.

    By chance, and at this moment, there is a local case (Clark County) that is being fought in court on this very charge, and it is due to go before a judge with petition for dismissal on June 15th.

    You may want to follow it...

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...448901#p448901

    This case is a classic example of how .270 is NOT suppose to be applied, but the OP has been fighting it for nearly 6 months now. :X


  7. #7
    Regular Member 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    a couple interesting citations for you to research....

    State v. Casad...although unpublished & therefore unquotable in curt, they've ruled that the mere shock of someone seeing a person with a holstered weapon is not enough to fulfil the "warrant alarm" portion of .270

    Also in the L.E. training bulletins:

    State v. Taylor 2003

    State v. Spencer 1994

    the above cases were directly cited by Bellevue PD in their training bulletin (see compilation of training bulletins, page 2, middle column)



    hopefully this can end this discussion

  8. #8
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    I tried to look at .270 as carefully as possible in this thread. The more you consider the different aspects of the law, the better you will understand its application ( and misapplication ).

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26173.html

    MD

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    I tried to look at .270 as carefully as possible in this thread. The more you consider the different aspects of the law, the better you will understand its application ( and misapplication ).

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26173.html

    MD
    It was a good examination Machoduck, I remember when you first posted it.

    People better have their legal-foo going strong when they read it however.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    I see opening this discussion, again, as:





    Until the wording in the law is changed, nobody will truly be able to interpret it. Why not just add "this does not apply to any holstered firearm carried by a person not otherwise prohibited from doing so."?




    Sorry, I had to get my two whacks 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?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    So, if a holstered weapon warrants alarm, then does that mean the same person being scared by your gun will have to call a MWAG on the officer that shows up?
    Ridiculous, isn't it?
    All these "laws" do is give an "out" for someone to misinterpret them, this way, nothing is fully understood by anyone and the legal system has job security.
    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    amlevin, your two whacks are more than welcome. Your suggestion for a change is good but until your change is adopted, I'm approaching the interpretation as best I can. What induced me to finally examine the ins and outs of .270 was the experience of one of our members, I can't recall at the moment who, who was "interviewed" by the Bellevue cops, one of whose Lt. came up with some narishkeit about IWB holsters being "concealed". Hence the appendix listing what's NOT included in .270.

    As a matter of fact, my whole point in analyzing .270 was to offer a silver cross for our people to show to the uneducated cop. No disrespect intended because when his own academy gives out false info, what's a cop to believe? I believe this to be consistent with our aim of education of both the public and the police.

    MD

  13. #13
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Bugly, your interpretation may not be how the original intent went but practically speaking, you're right on! :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

    MD

  14. #14
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    fmcdh, does one go to Chinatown to find legal foo?

    My experience on the street has been that if my mojo (aka legal foo) is stronger than the cops, he backs off, and conversely. This should not be a surprise to anyone. We have studied intently a small area of the law, where the patrol cop has to look at a wide range of behaviors and their possible illegality.

    MD

Posting Permissions

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