Was he convicted or just cited? If he was convicted I think the answer is probably. If he was only cited and it was later dismissed as justifiable as self defense thent ther should be no problem. Now, on to the details. Washington does not have an offense called "brandishing". What we do have is this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
[align=left]RCW 9.41.270[/align] [align=left]Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.[/align] [align=left](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.[/align][align=left](2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.[/align][align=left]- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note that a conviction for what we call Intimidation With A Weapon will result in revocation of an existing CPL. Further, RCW 9.41.070(1)(b) provides for denial of a CPL application is the applicant's CPL is in revoked status. If you don't already have a CPL and are convicted of Intimidation there is no CPL to revoke. So, it looks like an intimidation conviction would not be a bar to issuance of a new, first time CPL.[/align][align=left]
Now, if your buddy's conviction was in another state and wasn't a felony then there should be no problem. RCW 9.41.270 only requires revocation for a violation of RCW 9.41.270, not for violation of any other statute.[/align][align=left]PS - - IAAL but nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice or to establish an attorney/client relationship.
[/align]