imported post
GreatWhiteLlama wrote:
Welcome
I have only been stopped and questioned by a LEO once and his justification for questioning me was do to the fact that I was carrying with an IWB holster. The reasoning was that it was "partially concealed" :quirky
I now have an OWB holster...
You can read my thread on this here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/25883.html
Llama, your posting above is what got me to write my blurb on RCW 9.41.270. I was infuriated at how you were treated. If someone can't read the RCWs for himself, he has no business being a cop. My examination of ''270'' goes like this (notice particularly the list of words and terms not included in ''270'' at the end):
RCW 9.41.270, a layman's examination.
My purpose here has been to apply ordinary readership skills to an examination of what the legislature meant in writing RCW 9.41.270. My belief is that the law was meant to be understood by anyone with ordinary reading skills but that you may have to read and think carefully to get the full meaning. The focus is on subsection(1) because people who open carry pistols face a certain amount of misunderstanding regarding what .270 means, thus what constitutes illegal behavior in Washington. I begin with an untouched version of RCW 9.41.270, then use a series of tools to sharpen the view of certain phrases by which to examine the intent of the writers. The definitions "type - A carry" and "type B carry" are my own tool for clarity. Type A means to carry the pistol in the holster; type B means an action with the pistol out of the holster.
Washington Constitution, Article 1, SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
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.
For reference, a verbatim copy of RCW 9.41.270 follows. (
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270)
************************************************************************
RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm -- Unlawful carrying or handling -- Penalty -- Exceptions.
(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.
(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.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.
[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 426; 1969 c 8 § 1.]
Notes:
Finding -- Intent -- Severability -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date -- 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
************************************************************************
.270 (1) redacted (#1): It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any [weapon] 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.
"firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm," replaced by "weapon."
"[C]arry, exhibit, display, or draw" refers to types of actions performed with [weapons]. "Draw" is relatively unambiguous but even so, drawing to "low ready" can have a totally different implied intent from "on target" but is clearly an out of the holster action. The other three terms, "carry, exhibit, [and] display" could all be given a Type A definition (in the holster) or a Type B definition (out of the holster).
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. Concealed carry requires a Concealed Pistol License and is therefore not a right. 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.
"[C]arry, exhibit, display, or..." refers to certain actions, which, by the nature of the definition you give them could in certain circumstances be threatening or warranting alarm. Thus, in the context of RCW 9.41.270, "display" couldn't have been meant by the Legislature to mean "carry around in a holster where all can see it," except in very special circumstances (the type A definition). It would have to have meant to "grasp in the hand and remove from the holster in preparation for use" (the type B definition) or in other words to "present" or draw the weapon. Similarly, "Exhibit" could mean either "in a holster, visible to all" (A) or "brought out for people to see and take note of" (B). Again, the second meaning would be called for, given the Constitution. "Carry" would necessarily refer to being held in the hand (B) rather than in the holster (A) for it to mean anything other than Constitutionally protected activity. Additionally, the very fact that the legislature provided qualifiers proves that they did not intend to restrict open carry in section .270.
Let's replace "carry, exhibit, display, or draw" with "do something" and see if .270 still makes sense.
.270 (1) redacted (#2) It shall be unlawful for any person to [do something with a weapon] 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. The meaning isn't substantially changed.
"
n a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place" is a conjunctive phrase, meaning that all the required elements must be present simultaneously for the condition in question to be met. A man loading a pistol at a gun range would hardly raise an eyebrow but might cause considerable comment if done at a coffee house. At the range one might dismiss whoops and shouts with "I guess he finally got one in the black" but at the coffee house one would pay much more attention.
Each element above has myriad possibilities; in practice one must test actual or hypothetical events against the phrase in question rather than the other way around. There are just too many "what ifs".
"[T]hat either manifests an intent to intimidate another..." is a phrase worthy of our attention. The key word is "intent"; one must show by his actions that putting another person in fear of his life or person is his purpose, not an accidental by-product. If a person openly carrying a pistol encounters someone with a phobia of guns and the phobic person screams in fear, this does not demonstrate an intent to intimidate, unfortunate though the occurrence may be. Also note, the intent must be to intimidate, not to inform, educate, or elucidate.
"...or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." is another phrase demanding analysis in light of the apparent misunderstanding many have, especially in the police ranks, as to what it means. The real problem many have with the word "warrants" is that they think it synonymous with "causes." It is not. Several dictionaries agree that the concept of justification is present in the definition of the word "warrants" but is absent in the central definition of the word "causes." Note also that what needs to be warranted is alarm, not attention, awareness, or amazement.
A partial list of phrases, words, or terms that are not in RCW 9.41.270 follows:
appropriate (appropriate is used 10 times in RCW 9.41 but never to describe the behavior of armed citizens)
brandishing (brandish or brandishing is not anywhere in RCW 9.41)
causes alarm
causes ("causes" is not found anywhere in RCW 9.41)
concealed or any definition thereof (except in .270 (2) loss of concealed pistol license for violation and conviction of (1))
holster or any discussion thereof (not in any part of RCW 9.41)
making people nervous
safe (safety is never used in the context of devices on firearms)
scaring people ("scare" or "scaring" is not to be found anywhere in RCW 9.41)
the right to be unafraid
the right to be free from fear
Under these circumstances, is there a substantive difference between a pistol partially hidden be a pair of slacks and the same pistol partially hidden to the same degree by a holster?
The above examination is a cleaned up version of the link below.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26173.html
MD
