Brandishing Legality? - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Brandishing Legality?

  1. I have been carrying concealed in Washington for uhh.... 36 years now (yeah, I'm that old). Seeing a such a stupid, poorly written law as RCW 9.41.270 just reminds me that where you are makes a lot of difference in how you are treated. When you see wording like "in a manner" and "warrants alarm," you know it's open to very broad (mis)interpretation. We're basically an open carry state, but have a law that says if a gun-hating citizen claims to be intimidated or threatened, then the open carrier is a criminal. Yeah, I know, it makes no sense.

    In my rural area, wearing a gun is hardly noteworthy, and a rifle in the rack in one's pickup is common. But try it in an urban area and you may end up just as dead as that half-deaf woodcarver in Seattle who didn't even know the cop (who disliked him from past encounters) was there before he was shot full of holes. My hat is off to the brave and dedicated open carriers in such areas. They are taking a risk for our freedom. Remember, there are good cops and bad cops, trigger-happy cops and calm cops, ignorant cops and educated cops.

    My life is busy and already has sufficient risk. I'll stick with deep concealment until the coming societal changes dictate that I make changes.

    I do recall being told, long before the silly law mentioned above was passed, that if one gets into an argument or heated discussion, then one's coat flops open and shows one's weapon, that can constitute a threat to the other party. Exercise caution. You may be innocent until proven guilty, but in real life it takes a lot of time and money to prove your innocence.
    “The police of a State should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight is the foundation of civil freedom.” Heinlein

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Hamilton Felix View Post
    When you see wording like "in a manner" and "warrants alarm," you know it's open to very broad (mis)interpretation. We're basically an open carry state, but have a law that says if a gun-hating citizen claims to be intimidated or threatened, then the open carrier is a criminal. Yeah, I know, it makes no sense.
    Not only does it not make sense, but your interpretation is in error. Otherwise, Gregory E. Casad, a convicted felon who was arrested for carrying two rifles down the street on a Saturday afternoon because an "alarmed" woman called 911 would have been convicted. However, that isn't the case. The Washington Supreme court has placed great emphasis on ALL of the conditions of 9.41.270 being met in order to be guilty. That's why Casad was not only found not guilty, but the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the detention of Gregory E. Casad was illegal and without basis.

    http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...=downfile&id=9

    Also, notice that there is no LEO exception in 9.41.270. If your interpretation were correct, every LEO would be guilty of 9.41.270 anytime a citizen called 911 to say they were alarmed by the police officer's gun.

    I have open carried many times in downtown Seattle and in SEATAC International Airport without incident. Please stop adding to the unfounded fear of carrying a gun that is already out there. We need to stand up to unlawful actions of police instead of sticking our heads in the sand because of it. Otherwise the police will continue to step over the line of legality, taking wider strides each time they do so.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. Thumbs up

    Thank you, I stand corrected. That sounds like very good case law to remember. I know there was a great deal of concern when this law was passed.

    As always:

    Any law that can be abused, will be abused.
    Any law can be abused.

    I truly wish that it was a free country, that every citizen walked with pistol on one side, knife on the other.

    I believe, however, that "interpretation" and enforcement depends in large part on the political climate of the area. I recall holding a shotgun in one hand and motioning the local Deputy over (so he could see my new shotgun) with the other, when I lived in Newhalem. I'm told that such action might be interpreted differently in parts of Seattle....

    Ahhh... I just finished reading, and I thank you for that .pdf of the decision. I got the very distinct impression that this might have gone differently had it been in an urban residential area, had the complainant insisted she felt threatened, or had Casad been wearing "camo" clothing. I was however, gratified that Officer Ryan's obvious 11th hour lying got the State nowhere.

    I thank you again for this case law.
    “The police of a State should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight is the foundation of civil freedom.” Heinlein

  5. #44

    yard sign

    Thanks for all your great posts. Here is a great yard sign for you
    Attached Images Attached Images Brandishing Legality?-image.jpg 

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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