I've riled myself up over open carry.

D

deanf

New member
. . . and I want to rehash it. Here is the relevant law in Washington State regarding open carry.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(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.[/quote]

It's that part about " . . . or that warrants alarm . . ." that is the sticky part. On the surface, I assume that all the prosecutor would need to do is get someone to testify that open carry "alarmed" them, and he would have proved the elements of the crime. But, I also believe that he would have to prove that the "manner" of carry was alarming and the "circumstances" were alarming, and the "time and place" were alarming. So, he would have to prove these four elements.

This law is commonly believed in WA to prohibit open carry. Violation of this law will cause your CCW to be revoked. I think it was written with this specific penalty to cause anyone with a permit to get a big lump in their throat if they even considered open carry.

What do you all think? If I'm walking down the city street minding my own business and carrying my P220 openly, am I in violation? (For the record, I don't think so.)

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
Dean,

I would not consider you in violation of the law. If it were in hand, then I would be alarmed.

Of course many people are not used to seeing a sidearm on anyone other than LEOs, and to see an individual excercising their 2nd Amendment right openly, would most likely raise a few eyebrows, and panic a few soccer moms.

Why, because (as you know) we are being drawn away from what should be right and normal to where we have to exercise our rights "in the closet" so to speak.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
Well, if you were willing to get charged (as you surely would if you open carried), and I represented you (keeping inmind crim defense is not my area), I would raise the issue that the statute, either from a fair inference, or from perhaps legislative history/debate that the unwritten word "reasonably" is implied before the word "warrants" - if the judge buys this argument, then the prosecutor would have to show more than just that this one joe schmoe the prosecutor coughs up was alarmed, but rather that the state must prove that a REASONABLE PERSON would be alarmed under the specific circumstances under which you were carrying, which means that if the judge agrees that this is the true intent of the legislature, then you would have a right to let the JURY decide not whether they themselves would have been scared or whatever, but that a whether a reasonable, typical person in that community would have been alarmed, given all the exact facts and circumstances of your open carry. Which doesn't necessarily mean you'd beat the rap. It just means you'd get to make an argument to the jury why a reasonable person wouldn't be alarmed, keeping in mind that most people now days, are sadly, alarmed just by the sight of a holstered gun. Even if this fear is not logical, it still may be the response of a "reasonable person" in that community, given the fact that reasonable is basically whatever the jury thinks is reasonable, not what you and I as gun owners thinks is reasonable. But you would at least be able to present your reasons why you feel it was in fact safe to carry openly. My .02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top