What are Washington's "Open Carry" laws for rifles?

[gsx1138]

imported post

I carry my unloaded rifles to my truck all the time from my house. Is my AR-15 considered "assaultive" because it falls in the EBR category? :shock:

 

[fire suppressor]

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

read spencer closer! he violated rcw 9.41.270, because he was carrying his rifle "in an assultive manner". he looked like a dangerous guy with his gun!

state v cassad showes that it is legal to carry long guns in the open and not violate the law!

With that definition anyone carrying a holstered handgun could be considered "assultive" depending on who saw it. I have even herd the phrase "assult pistol" from the media before

 

[fire suppressor]

imported post

gsx1138 wrote:

I carry my unloaded rifles to my truck all the time from my house. Is my AR-15 considered "assaultive" because it falls in the EBR category? :shock:

No its because its black The media seems to have a thing for black guns *shakes head*

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

fire suppressor wrote:

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

read spencer closer! he violated rcw 9.41.270, because he was carrying his rifle "in an assultive manner". he looked like a dangerous guy with his gun!

state v cassad showes that it is legal to carry long guns in the open and not violate the law!

With that definition anyone carrying a holstered handgun could be considered "assultive" depending on who saw it. I have even herd the phrase "assult pistol" from the media before

you must read spencer carefully!, to understand that his AK or AR was carried "at the ready" slung from his shoulder, with the but at his shoulder and the gun pointed out in front of him, with his hands gripping the stock, ready to point and shoot!!

not the same as cassad, carrying guns cradled in his arms like fire wood.

and nothing like a holstered gun.

 

[dan10mmman]

imported post

I beg to differ. I found no description as you state. nowhere does it state Spencers hands were on the rifle. You quote Wa Vs. Cassad. A felon in possesion of firearms, and that is O.K. with you? A Veteran walking his dog and slinging his rifle over his shoulder should be jailed? Maybe he just carried thr wrong gun? Maybe he wanted to know if the Second Ammendment means what it says? Maybe he wanted to know how much the media has clouded the minds of the average American?

I digress...perhaps I shall find Spencer and ask him personally

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

dan10mmman wrote:

I beg to differ. I found no description as you state. nowhere does it state Spencers hands were on the rifle. You quote Wa Vs. Cassad. A felon in possesion of firearms, and that is O.K. with you? A Veteran walking his dog and slinging his rifle over his shoulder should be jailed? Maybe he just carried thr wrong gun? Maybe he wanted to know if the Second Ammendment means what it says? Maybe he wanted to know how much the media has clouded the minds of the average American?

I digress...perhaps I shall find Spencer and ask him personally

Officer Wall approached Spencer in her vehicle and noticed that he was carrying a rifle in "a hostile, assaultive type manner with
the weapon ready". She also noticed that the rifle had a clip attached to it. Wall stopped her vehicle at a distance from Spencer and
ordered him to put the gun down and walk toward her with his hands in the air. She then took him into custody, searched him, and
found a .45-caliber automatic pistol under his jacket, as well as a valid concealed weapons permit.

5 In this regard, we note that the present case, in which the Defendant was carrying a visibly loaded AK-47 rifle in an assaultive manner at night in a
residential area, does not fall anywhere near a potential "gray area" in the statute.



At least how I read that, he originally had it over his shoulder, but put it into his hands later when the officer saw him. Else, I don't see how a rifle slung over one's shoulder is "carried in an assaultive type manner" and think the lower court misruled.

 

[dan10mmman]

imported post

a visibly loaded AK-47 = assaultive

 

[virgil47]

imported post

Hmmm, it would seem that walking at night and watching where you are stepping is a cause for alarm. I believe it stated that he was walking his dog at the time of his arrest. If any of you have ever walked a dog that is not particularly well trained I'm sure you would be looking down in order to not step on or become entangled with the dog. I'm also stymied by the terminology "obviously loaded weapon". Does having a clip installed automatically indicate that the weapon is loaded? I believe there was no evidence that the weapon was loaded until after the arrest when a visual check of the clip contents and the chamber contents was made. Also it states that the weapon was slung over his shoulder until his meeting with the LEO. The LEO immediately told him to place the weapon on the ground which he did. In order to place the weapon on the ground any person would then grip the weapon with both hands in the process of placing it on the ground. If you recall this individual was walking a dog at the time of his arrest and I'm sure that played a role in how smoothly he was able to respond to the LEO's demands. After reading about this case it would seem to me that his attorny did a very poor job of representing him.

 

[bcp]

imported post

People keep mentioning the rifle was on a sling, but how was it on a sling? Vertical with muzzle up/down or horizontal in front of the body?

Like this:

Or like this:

 

[Batousaii]

imported post

From what i read (cant remember where, `cept to say it was a legal looking document with little numbers running down the left side of the page [and very long difficult reading].) He had been carrying it slung at his back, but at a later time close to contact with the officers, he had moved it to a position that appeared "at the ready". having carried a combat rifle for quite a while myself, i would comment on 1) how it can get awkward during long movements, and i was prone to moving it's position for comfort. 2) Most slings on combat rifles can easily be carried to facilitate these position changes easily.

- So, i myself (and sad to say) believe he could have easily violated RCW as it is currently written. Where as i do not agree that it should be that easy to violate the RCW, we would need to either have that RCW re-written or repealed.

- I had at one point made a short lived post on re-wording that RCW, what it would take, or if it would be worth it.

Check it out if you like: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/31272.html--> Should we change RCW 9.41.270 ???

Bat.

 

[dan10mmman]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

dan10mmman wrote:

a visibly loaded AK-47 = assaultive

Not by itself. When combined with other factors to meet all the elements of 9.41.270, then, yes. You seem to be really hung up that Spencer was found guilty simply because he was carrying a loaded rifle on a sling, and that simply is not true. It was all the other elements COMBINED with the loaded rifle.

Let's say I am getting a coffee in a coffee shop during normal business hours with a loaded AK-47 slung on my back, muzzle pointed down toward the ground.

9.41.270:
(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.

1. In a manner: could they say that carrying a loaded AK-47 is "in a manner" that manifests an intent to intimidate or warrants alarm? Sure they could. Now, the Supreme Court of Washington has opined that carrying a handgun in a holster is NOT "in a manner", IE: not assaultive.

2. Under circumstances: could they say that getting coffee is under circumstances that manifests an intent to intimidate or warrants alarm? Absolutely not. Getting coffee is a standard occurrence that millions of Americans do every day.

3. At a time and place: could they say that my presence in a coffee shop during normal business hours is manifesting an intent to intimidate or warrants alarm? Absolutely not. Millions of Americans every day go to coffee shops during normal business hours.

SEE?!? I can carry a loaded AK-47 down the street and it may be decided to manifest an intent to intimidate and may warrant alarm for the safety of others (not my personal opinion), HOWEVER, without the other elements of 270 being met, I am not guilty of violating 270.

It was determined that Spencer, walking briskly at night with his head down, not looking at anybody IN COMBINATION WITH the loaded gun met ALL the elements of 270 - not just the rifle by itself.

Lt. perhaps you can tell us why it keeps mentioning an AK-47? If it were just a rifle it would be read verry differently. In my humble opinion it was all centered on the fact it was an AK=47, not a Winchester or a Ruger...The law should not care what rifle a man carries. "The Right to keep and bear arms"doesnt say a single thing about what kind of arms are carried.Do you believe that an AK is more dangerous than any other gun?