• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I-594 and Open Carry, in Washington State

RogueReflections

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
125
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
Useless firearm legislation has passed in the State of Washington (for now) I am curious how this will all affect legal open carry in the State of Washington. Many open carriers have stories of "investigatory stops" while they have been out in public. In my experience, law enforcement in our state has been pretty cool about not going over-board when confronting an open carrier. As a public photographer and citizen journalist who also open carries, I can tell you: almost every time I have been stopped, "investigated," and even harassed by law enforcement, it has been directly due to the fact that I am filming in public. Even though both activities are legal here, the camera REALLY puts law enforcement on edge.

So, since I have very little trust in the Government or it's officials to be responsible and respectful of now having a little more control over law-abiding citizens, it makes me wonder. If I am stopped by a law enforcement officer, post I-594, and the officer disarms me during one of these investigatory stops, do I now have to pass a background check, just to get my firearm handed back to me? If this is the case, I can see legal open carry in this state threatened.

Any input?
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
That's a very good point. It's legal under 594's law enforcement exemption to hand your firearm to a police officer, but when he hands it back to you he is NOT handing it to a law enforcement officer or government official, he would be in violation of the law.

As would you for accepting it. Two felonies, no waiting.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Man, this is a nightmare.

I don't want to be a negative Nancy, but where was all the crying before the vote? How did this pass so handily if it's so detrimental to gun owners? 60% is a landslide IMO. It seems like there was no education out there on the law, as if no one warned the voting public.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
That's a very good point. It's legal under 594's law enforcement exemption to hand your firearm to a police officer, but when he hands it back to you he is NOT handing it to a law enforcement officer or government official, he would be in violation of the law.

As would you for accepting it. Two felonies, no waiting.

I would like to think that because the LEO is exempt, by giving back your rightfully constitutionally owned property, one could not be arrested for that.
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
I posed this very question to Renton PD's police chief. I actually got a quick reply - they don't know what they are going to do yet.
 

sirtirithon

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
55
Location
Spokane, ,
LEO's shouldnt be stopping us OC'ers any longer because if you have a handgun in your possession you must have passed a BGC and be a law abiding citizen, correct?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I think the exception for LE covers securing a pistol during a stop there is no state with UBC laws where that is an issue

Of course exemptions/exceptions to laws must be proven in court ~ in fact, they do not exist until plead in court as they can be waived .. so would this make the police subject to immediate citizen's arrests?

Interesting ...
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
Like most things put to a public vote... it was the best propaganda that won. The proponents of i594 basically outright lied to everyone about how wonderful and useful the bill would be. It seems its not illegal to lie to get votes.
 

March Hare

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
351
Location
Arridzona - Flatlander
Wow

I hate to see the great state of Washington turning into California North.

I really hope that the Citizens realize what a mess this law is and work to get it repealed!

What a cluster...

Good luck!

-MH
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Like most things put to a public vote... it was the best propaganda that won. The proponents of i594 basically outright lied to everyone about how wonderful and useful the bill would be. It seems its not illegal to lie to get votes.


This comes to mind.....

"It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of [*9] the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not."- Lysander Spooner

Bolded for emphasis....
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Man, this is a nightmare.

I don't want to be a negative Nancy, but where was all the crying before the vote? How did this pass so handily if it's so detrimental to gun owners? 60% is a landslide IMO. It seems like there was no education out there on the law, as if no one warned the voting public.

A comfortable lie is more believable to the ignorant than an uncomfortable truth. Tell a fool that he is not free until he gives up his freedom, and he will run to do so.

Yes, but you are a witness to the LEO's felony. You don't piss off witnesses to your own crimes by arresting them.

You'd think so, but that's not the case. Police arrest their victims all the time -- there was a guy I read about a while back who was charged with four counts of destruction of government property because he bled on the officers uniforms while they were beating him half to death -- he was face down on the floor of a cell with his arms handcuffed behind him at the time.
 
Last edited:

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
Man, this is a nightmare.

I don't want to be a negative Nancy, but where was all the crying before the vote? How did this pass so handily if it's so detrimental to gun owners? 60% is a landslide IMO. It seems like there was no education out there on the law, as if no one warned the voting public.

It was that damned school shooting that REALLY did it in for us. I just KNEW the moment I heard about the shooting, that was it. We lost then and there. Now, what do we do about it? Well, the protest is coming up, and I'd love to join that if possible, but unless King goes red, we're gonna probably see more bills pass very soon. This is the beginning. Right now, we need to find SOME way to convince King County voters to avoid falling for OTHER Gun Control bills.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Of course exemptions/exceptions to laws must be proven in court ~ in fact, they do not exist until plead in court as they can be waived .. so would this make the police subject to immediate citizen's arrests?

Interesting ...

All depends upon how the law is written---

If it is written that certain activities are "defenses to" then, yes, it must be claimed in court.

If however, it is written that certain activities are not a violation, or say, a certain class (permit holders) are exempt then NO, you don't have to claim it in court as you shouldn't have been charged or prosecuted to start with. And your follow on suit for false arrest/malicious prosecution/rights violations will have much more teeth!
 
Top