Was this brandishing?

A few weeks ago I had to go to Seattle for a follow up doctors appointment. I already knew Vergina Mason has a no weapons policy the signs are clearly visible and because I was going to be getting X-rays I decided to leave my XD in the car. Before I got out of my car I took my gun still in the holster off and stuck it under my seat but when I was done with the doctor and went back to my car I stood outside my car and put my gun again still in its holster on my belt. Would this be considered brandishing according to the RCWs?

We all know the RCW says you can not display or way a firearm but as we state on here all the time a gun poses no threat to anyone as long as it stays in its holster. I think the RCW could be clearer on this because as we also all know in this state you must have a cpl you carry a loaded gun inside your car. Legally then anyone who does not have a cpl would by law have to unload their weapon before entering their vehicle.

Two questions, opinions aside did I illegally brandish my firearm and is the wording of the RCWs forcing others without a cpl to do the same

Brandishing is displaying in a menacing or threatening manner.

Websters definition:

"Definition of BRANDISH


transitive verb


1: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly


2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner "

From your description you were not doing this. Even if you unholster and show your weapon to a friend, in public. (although not recommended, only because we don't want to alarm people unnessecarily), it is not brandishing.

People really get freaked out about seeing a firearm, even more so when they see it out of a holster. But come on people, there are times when you have to remove a holstered weapon and store it, whether it's still in the holster or not.

Do what you need to do to secure yourself and your firearm, without doing it in a threatening manner, and you'll be fine. Just know, that a holster is not required to open carry, unless it is a requirement of the state. Just because I've never seen it, doesn't mean some state doesn't require it.

Of course there are always people that will tell you otherwise, because they aren't informed.

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.

As Big Dave pointed out in another thread the totality of the facts make the case. Rearming after being in a no weapon zone, would in my opinion not be an act rising to the level of a .270 violation, the Police and District Attorney at the event will also factor in. Myself it seems a reasonable act, with a proximate reasonable cause. Wasn't there a case over in Yakima of a man arming up in a bank parking lot that basically boiled down to "it was a reasonable act"and not enough for a .270 conviction?

I agree that more clarity could be had from this RCW, but I am unsure of the wording change needed, if they just made it a legal act to carry for self defense and removed the CPL requirement of unloaded without one, they would remove a major issue.

Again, where in our RCW's is the word "brandishing" used?

Fire Supressor as long as you do not pull up and block the front doors of he hospital and bring your holstered weapon out and put it on while yelling, cursing as loud as you can, then no you should not have a problem.

SpyderTattoo said:

Again, where in our RCW's is the word "brandishing" used?

Click to expand...

your right I mixed up the words it does not say brandish it says display "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm..."

fire suppressor said:

your right I mixed up the words it does not say brandish it says display "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm..."

Click to expand...

Read the whole part. The place where it refers to "manner" and "warrants alarm".

If your firearm is in the holster while you are putting it back on your belt you by no means violating the law.

I carry with a Paddle Holster when I have to go places like this. Easier off and easier on with little or no hassle and with your hand over the weapon most people wouldn't even notice it.