Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Re wording 9.41.270

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Re wording 9.41.270

    It sort of came up in another thread, if you were to re word and eliminate wording from .270 to clarify illegal carry/intimidation how would you do it? Try and be as simplistic as possible, either by striking words all together or replacing a few key words.

    9.41.270 Currently reads:

    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.
    <snip>

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
    <snip>
    (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<snip>
    The words that I suggest striking are in bold above and read as follows:

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 manifests an intent to intimidate another person.
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 08-18-2011 at 10:22 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to exhibit, display, draw, or deploy as if intended for immediate, imminent use 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 manifests an intent to threaten, intimidate, or cause bodily harm to another person for reasons other than the defense of self or others.
    I'm hard pressed to find any way for a lawyer to weasel any misconstruction out of those words.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    I like it

    I agree the ambiguity is completely removed in your edited version. How do we get it changed ?

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    It sort of came up in another thread, if you were to re word and eliminate wording from .270 to clarify illegal carry/intimidation how would you do it? Try and be as simplistic as possible, either by striking words all together or replacing a few key words.

    9.41.270 Currently reads:



    The words that I suggest striking are in bold above and read as follows:

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 manifests an intent to intimidate another person.
    WOW! KISS! +1 for simplicity for sure!

  5. #5
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    Nice edit there Nick
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    I like the edit, its clear and precise.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 08-19-2011 at 03:36 AM.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    The edit is good. It clears things up well. However, we all know you can't just eliminate words from a law. You have to write a whole new law consisting of 40 pages explaining the change..........lol
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I would suggest getting rid of the words exhibit or display. Maybe "deploy" like Mike suggested or "use" in a manner...

    I would actually like to see the law disappear..wouldn't it still be illegal to threaten or intimidate somebody with any kind of force?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    It sort of came up in another thread, if you were to re word and eliminate wording from .270 to clarify illegal carry/intimidation how would you do it? Try and be as simplistic as possible, either by striking words all together or replacing a few key words.

    9.41.270 Currently reads:



    The words that I suggest striking are in bold above and read as follows:

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 manifests an intent to intimidate another person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    I'm hard pressed to find any way for a lawyer to weasel any misconstruction out of those words.
    Unfortunately I still see possible problems with the new wording. The "intent to intimidate" wording could be problematic if an Officer chooses to arrest someone for Open Carrying a firearm and claims it was with the intent to "intimidate". This could especially be a problem for someone concealing and then transitioning to open carry.

    I would like to see the statement "A holstered firearm does not in itself warrant alarm" to the existing wording. Almost every other law contains exceptions and exemptions, why not one like this for ".270"?
    "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?"

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post

    I would like to see the statement "A holstered firearm does not in itself warrant alarm" to the existing wording. Almost every other law contains exceptions and exemptions, why not one like this for ".270"?
    YES, I like this

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Unfortunately I still see possible problems with the new wording. The "intent to intimidate" wording could be problematic if an Officer chooses to arrest someone for Open Carrying a firearm and claims it was with the intent to "intimidate". This could especially be a problem for someone concealing and then transitioning to open carry.
    Which is why in the first part I specifically included "as if intended for immediate, imminent use" as a clarifying phrase. I thought that having the sidearm handy in a holster could be interpreted as being ready for 'immediate' use, so I added the 'imminent' wording. In a holster is not imminent...in hand, pointed at someone is.

    I would like to see the statement "A holstered firearm does not in itself warrant alarm" to the existing wording. Almost every other law contains exceptions and exemptions, why not one like this for ".270"?
    Agreed.

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    It sort of came up in another thread, if you were to re word and eliminate wording from .270 to clarify illegal carry/intimidation how would you do it? Try and be as simplistic as possible, either by striking words all together or replacing a few key words.
    9.41.270 Currently reads:
    The words that I suggest striking are in bold above and read as follows:
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 manifests an intent to intimidate another person.
    I have always appreciated the KISS (keep it simple stupid) approach on most things in life but removing the wording

    (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.

    This would eliminate a violation of law for some idiot walking down the middle of the road (or other place of your choice) and waving his/her firearms while yelling screaming as long as he/she did not make a direct threat to you.
    I would look at something a little more detailed as limiting what is considered warranting alarm.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I would actually like to see the law disappear...
    Amen. But gogodawgs' approach likely has a better chance of being implemented.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886
    I've seen subsections of laws (especially in the "business chapters") where there is a clarifying clause immediately after the law. The same could be used in this instance, such as adding the sentance:

    "Nothing in this section should be construed as to prevent a person who is not otherwise disqualified from carrying a pistol in a holster in plain view while in public."
    Last edited by G20-IWB24/7; 08-19-2011 at 08:08 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Actually, dont we all lawfully open carry with the intent to intimidate criminals to deter from trying to harm us through the superior display of legal firearms?

    in·tent

    1 <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I02/I0225300" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="intent pronunciation" /></a> /ɪnˈtɛnt/ Show Spelled[in-tent] Show IPA
    noun 1.something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

    2. the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.

    3. Law . the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.

    4. meaning or significance.

    in·tim·i·date

    <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I02/I0262200" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="intimidate pronunciation" /></a> /ɪnˈtɪmɪˌdeɪt/ Show Spelled[in-tim-i-deyt] Show IPA
    verb (used with object), -dat·ed, -dat·ing. 1. to make timid; fill with fear.

    2. to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.

    3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  16. #16
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Nick, I like the rewrite. Now it's finding a Representative that will take it and get backing.


    Currently the only intimidation laws are those for schools and public servants


    RCW 28A.600.480
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.a...te=28A.600.480

    RCW 28A.635.100

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.a...te=28A.635.100

    RCW 28A.600.480

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.a...te=28A.600.480

    Public Servant


    RCW 9A.76.180
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.76.180



  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I have always appreciated the KISS (keep it simple stupid) approach on most things in life but removing the wording

    (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.

    This would eliminate a violation of law for some idiot walking down the middle of the road (or other place of your choice) and waving his/her firearms while yelling screaming as long as he/she did not make a direct threat to you.
    I would look at something a little more detailed as limiting what is considered warranting alarm.
    Yes, I am aware that striking the last phrase causes an issue. But in my opinion is causes more issues than it eliminates, therefore I suggest it be stricken. I think your scenario can be addressed with the current reckless endangerment RCW.

    RCW 9A.36.050

    Reckless endangerment.
    (1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Rather than striking text from the law, I think it would be a good deal easier to simply get it amended with the holstered sidearm exemption.

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Rather than striking text from the law, I think it would be a good deal easier to simply get it amended with the holstered sidearm exemption.
    My thinking along that line is that most "anti's" would fight the removal of any phrase or sentence but would think an "added" statement would be strengthening the law. How right they would be, strengthening it in favor of OC
    "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?"

  20. #20
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Actually they ammend current law every session...strike one word(s), add (an)other(s). There is no need of a complete rewrite to clarify wording,

    It actually isn't that difficult when the present wording has cost government entities procecution and defence costs because the present wording had a contested understanding,

    I believe there is a meetup with Overstreet in Bham soon? good place to present it. He can (if he is inclined to) run it through the system properly.

    Look up any of the laws and look at the revisions at the bottom of the page and you will see what/how it is done. They use strike throughs, so it is obvious what the old wording was.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    How about we try for this?

    Montana Code Annotated 2009

    45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
    (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.
    (3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

    History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

    Link: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-111.htm

    It's located in the Montana Code in the Justifiable Use of Force section, not with the other firearms laws. Except for paragraph (3) it looks real good to me.

    P. S. - - I needed to look this up after a little "incident" in Kalispell, MT, on Saturday, 08-19-11 (I may post the story here later. For now, check out: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-on-08-19-2011).
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  22. #22
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Montana Code Annotated 2009

    45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
    (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.
    (3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

    History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 332, L. 2009.

    Link: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-111.htm

    It's located in the Montana Code in the Justifiable Use of Force section, not with the other firearms laws. Except for paragraph (3) it looks real good to me.

    P. S. - - I needed to look this up after a little "incident" in Kalispell, MT, on Saturday, 08-19-11 (I may post the story here later. For now, check out: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-on-08-19-2011).
    This is absolutely the best suggestion so far.....
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  23. #23
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    This is absolutely the best suggestion so far.....
    Agreed, lose section 3.
    Last edited by John Hardin; 08-23-2011 at 09:23 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    There should be something added so that LEO's can not go around brandishing. Like when LEO's approach an open carrier with their guns drawn.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    It sort of came up in another thread, if you were to re word and eliminate wording from .270 to clarify illegal carry/intimidation how would you do it? Try and be as simplistic as possible, either by striking words all together or replacing a few key words.

    9.41.270 Currently reads:



    The words that I suggest striking are in bold above and read as follows:

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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 manifests an intent to intimidate another person.
    What if the complainants (s) are accomplished left antigun liars? Intent is just a word. Does it pass the subjective and intent to instill fear test? Can you anticipate the prosecutor will not show intent in manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place, if they can get past the test?

    I think there's still too much leeway in the statute allowing for continued abuse.
    In other words I’m not sure taking out “either, or that warrants alarm for the safety of other” is enough.


    Edit to add:
    Maybe the legislative fear mongering needs to be repealed too. This kind of BS sets the stage for liberals claiming their fear clearly defines intent.

    RCW 43.70.540

    Legislative finding and intent -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: "The legislature finds that the increasing violence in our society causes great concern for the immediate health and safety of our citizens and our social institutions. Youth violence is increasing at an alarming rate and young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are at the highest risk of being perpetrators and victims of violence. Additionally, random violence, including homicide and the use of firearms, has dramatically increased over the last decade
    Last edited by jbone; 08-23-2011 at 06:57 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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