Re wording 9.41.270

gogodawgs · Aug 18, 2011

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.

Phssthpok · Aug 18, 2011

(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.

Whitney · Aug 18, 2011

I like it

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

~Whitney

Drazhar Rakarth · Aug 18, 2011

gogodawgs said:
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!

SpyderTattoo · Aug 19, 2011

Nice edit there Nick

slapmonkay · Aug 19, 2011

I like the edit, its clear and precise.

thebigsd · Aug 19, 2011

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

sudden valley gunner · Aug 19, 2011

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?

amlevin · Aug 19, 2011

gogodawgs said:
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.

Phssthpok said:
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"?

MSG Laigaie · Aug 19, 2011

amlevin said:
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

Phssthpok · Aug 19, 2011

amlevin said:
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.

BigDave · Aug 19, 2011

gogodawgs said:
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.

geojohn · Aug 19, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
I would actually like to see the law disappear...

Amen. But gogodawgs' approach likely has a better chance of being implemented.

G20-IWB24/7 · Aug 19, 2011

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."

amzbrady · Aug 19, 2011

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?

[h=2]in·tent[/h][SUP]1 [/SUP] <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.

[h=2]in·tim·i·date[/h] <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> /ɪnˈtɪm

ɪˌdeɪt/

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.

Bill Starks · Aug 19, 2011

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.aspx?cite=28A.600.480

RCW 28A.635.100
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.635.100

RCW 28A.600.480
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.600.480

Public Servant

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

gogodawgs · Aug 20, 2011

BigDave said:
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.

[h=2]RCW 9A.36.050[/h][h=1]Reckless endangerment.[/h]

(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.

John Hardin · Aug 20, 2011

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.

amlevin · Aug 20, 2011

John Hardin said:
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

hermannr · Aug 20, 2011

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.

Re wording 9.41.270

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member