joejoejoe
Regular Member
Hey gang, I haven't been around for awhile due to a heavy school schedule. I have, however, been thinking a lot about the RCW regarding unlawful carry of weapons capable of producing bodily harm. I have written a letter of recommendation to our State Legislators in regards to the issue. I thought you guys should look it over and give me some peer review. I think it's time we got serious about this, and I am willing to head this up. I am talking petitions, meetings, hearings, whatever it takes. The first step is getting in touch with our State legislative. I wanted to start with this letter. Here it is:
Dear Legislative Member,
I am writing you today in regards to the RCW 9.41.270. The history of this code is veiled, and I believe that its language is the cause for many recent open carry arrests. This current code reads;
(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.
Two problems arise in the language of this law. The first problem is in the statement “in a manner… that either manifests an intent to intimidate another OR that warrants alarm for the safety of other person.”
A quick search with the history of the 1969 Bill HR 123 shows that this law was intended to deter the radical political group known as the Black Panthers. During the 60’s, the Black Panthers were standing outside capitol buildings and voting booths (anywhere from 15-40 men) with rifles and handguns opposing legislation changes in California. California made a quick location ban on public property owned by the state, while Oregon and Washington rushed to protect their states as well. Washington State originally had a “case and carry” law outlawing the open display of firearms, which was repealed in 1997 under SB5326. Under SB5326, the laws repealed were specifically regarding open carry AND licensed open carry. However, the remainder of the obscure language in regards to open carry and political radical groups remained.
Taken from the Washington State Open Carry site, it states: What is "Warranting alarm", why do people (firearms instructors, police officers, gun shop employees) say that this law makes it illegal to open carry? In 1969, RCW 9.41.270 was passed in light of the intimidating actions of the Black Panther Party in both the State of California and in Seattle. Analysis of the legislative intent behind the bill and final law indicated that the Washington State Legislature never intended this to be a gun control bill, and stripped out in committee provisions of the bill which would have prohibited carry within 500 feet of any "public building" for fear it would ensnare a peaceable open carrier walking nearby, thereby violating a persons rights under Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. This is not to say that all forms of open carry are lawful. The key word is "peaceable". If your pistol is in a holster, and you're generally not touching it or making gripping movements (except of course, in an actual act of self defense), or opening a coat to expose your pistol to intimidate someone to do something, then the current body of case law (State vs. Casad, State v. Spencer) generally makes such carry lawful.
You have to ask yourself, “Why even put a 500 ft. rule into the bill if the mere display of a firearm is alarming (thus illegal)?”
The second problem is with section 2. It states that anyone found violating section 1 will lose their CPL. This language was NOT removed when the licensed open carry law was repealed. This has led many (Officers included) to believe that you either conceal it or lose your license to carry.
I would like to offer a resolution to these problems that would restrict alarming behavior and clearly allow for the open carry of firearms.
First, the Black Panthers were restrained by this new law. However, under the State Constitution, it reads:
Article 1, Section 24
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.
This Article is all the State needed to refer to at the time to consider arresting the radical political group. The Black Panthers were already restrained prior to RCW 9.41.270. However, the State wanted to push for a gun ban. They used the California opportunity to do that. The Washington State Constitution is already a law in place that restricts warranting alarm of large groups (which is the intent of the RCW).
Secondly, since the code was clearly not meant to restrict the peaceful carry of firearms, I suggest a repeal to the entire code of RCW 9.41.270 in exchange for a clear RCW regarding open carry that would be attached to RCW 9.41.050 regarding “Carrying Firearms.”
New RCW 9.41.050:
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.
(4) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol on his or her person openly unless it is properly holstered on his or her person.
(5) Subsection (4) shall not apply to 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.
Though I do not believe (5) is necessary, it may be added for clarity.
I believe the restructuring of this law will satisfy both sides of the isle. We already have the right to open carry in Washington State. This law will put a mandate on carries to properly holster their firearm. This will restrict walking around with a gun in your hand or tucking it into your pants, warranting alarm due to cultural stereotypes. This will also allow for the peaceful carry of a firearm, giving citizens the protection of their rights to defend their selves and their property the way they see fit. This is NOT a more lenient law regarding the carry of firearms. This is intended to remove the obscure language left behind from the Black Panther times regarding the carrying of firearms. Furthermore, there is already a law regarding the discharge, the aiming, and the use of deadly force.
RCW 9.41.270 with regards to all other weapons capable of producing bodily harms can be transferred to RCW 9.41.250 and read as follows.
(3) It shall be unlawful for any person to exhibit, display, or draw any dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm.
(4) Subsection (3) with regards to “any other weapon” shall not apply to firearms under RCW 9.41.050
(5) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (3) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
I would like to get together with you and discuss this issue further. I feel like we can come to a conclusion that would satisfy the concern for non-peaceful carry AND the concern for unlawful detentions of peaceful carriers that cost the State both time and money.
Thank you for reading this.
Regards,
Joe Winton
(edited typos)
Dear Legislative Member,
I am writing you today in regards to the RCW 9.41.270. The history of this code is veiled, and I believe that its language is the cause for many recent open carry arrests. This current code reads;
(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.
Two problems arise in the language of this law. The first problem is in the statement “in a manner… that either manifests an intent to intimidate another OR that warrants alarm for the safety of other person.”
A quick search with the history of the 1969 Bill HR 123 shows that this law was intended to deter the radical political group known as the Black Panthers. During the 60’s, the Black Panthers were standing outside capitol buildings and voting booths (anywhere from 15-40 men) with rifles and handguns opposing legislation changes in California. California made a quick location ban on public property owned by the state, while Oregon and Washington rushed to protect their states as well. Washington State originally had a “case and carry” law outlawing the open display of firearms, which was repealed in 1997 under SB5326. Under SB5326, the laws repealed were specifically regarding open carry AND licensed open carry. However, the remainder of the obscure language in regards to open carry and political radical groups remained.
Taken from the Washington State Open Carry site, it states: What is "Warranting alarm", why do people (firearms instructors, police officers, gun shop employees) say that this law makes it illegal to open carry? In 1969, RCW 9.41.270 was passed in light of the intimidating actions of the Black Panther Party in both the State of California and in Seattle. Analysis of the legislative intent behind the bill and final law indicated that the Washington State Legislature never intended this to be a gun control bill, and stripped out in committee provisions of the bill which would have prohibited carry within 500 feet of any "public building" for fear it would ensnare a peaceable open carrier walking nearby, thereby violating a persons rights under Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. This is not to say that all forms of open carry are lawful. The key word is "peaceable". If your pistol is in a holster, and you're generally not touching it or making gripping movements (except of course, in an actual act of self defense), or opening a coat to expose your pistol to intimidate someone to do something, then the current body of case law (State vs. Casad, State v. Spencer) generally makes such carry lawful.
You have to ask yourself, “Why even put a 500 ft. rule into the bill if the mere display of a firearm is alarming (thus illegal)?”
The second problem is with section 2. It states that anyone found violating section 1 will lose their CPL. This language was NOT removed when the licensed open carry law was repealed. This has led many (Officers included) to believe that you either conceal it or lose your license to carry.
I would like to offer a resolution to these problems that would restrict alarming behavior and clearly allow for the open carry of firearms.
First, the Black Panthers were restrained by this new law. However, under the State Constitution, it reads:
Article 1, Section 24
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.
This Article is all the State needed to refer to at the time to consider arresting the radical political group. The Black Panthers were already restrained prior to RCW 9.41.270. However, the State wanted to push for a gun ban. They used the California opportunity to do that. The Washington State Constitution is already a law in place that restricts warranting alarm of large groups (which is the intent of the RCW).
Secondly, since the code was clearly not meant to restrict the peaceful carry of firearms, I suggest a repeal to the entire code of RCW 9.41.270 in exchange for a clear RCW regarding open carry that would be attached to RCW 9.41.050 regarding “Carrying Firearms.”
New RCW 9.41.050:
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.
(4) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol on his or her person openly unless it is properly holstered on his or her person.
(5) Subsection (4) shall not apply to 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.
Though I do not believe (5) is necessary, it may be added for clarity.
I believe the restructuring of this law will satisfy both sides of the isle. We already have the right to open carry in Washington State. This law will put a mandate on carries to properly holster their firearm. This will restrict walking around with a gun in your hand or tucking it into your pants, warranting alarm due to cultural stereotypes. This will also allow for the peaceful carry of a firearm, giving citizens the protection of their rights to defend their selves and their property the way they see fit. This is NOT a more lenient law regarding the carry of firearms. This is intended to remove the obscure language left behind from the Black Panther times regarding the carrying of firearms. Furthermore, there is already a law regarding the discharge, the aiming, and the use of deadly force.
RCW 9.41.270 with regards to all other weapons capable of producing bodily harms can be transferred to RCW 9.41.250 and read as follows.
(3) It shall be unlawful for any person to exhibit, display, or draw any dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm.
(4) Subsection (3) with regards to “any other weapon” shall not apply to firearms under RCW 9.41.050
(5) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (3) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
I would like to get together with you and discuss this issue further. I feel like we can come to a conclusion that would satisfy the concern for non-peaceful carry AND the concern for unlawful detentions of peaceful carriers that cost the State both time and money.
Thank you for reading this.
Regards,
Joe Winton
(edited typos)
Last edited: