Once again, TFL offers helpful thoughts on hard questions, as in this thread on collapsible batons. In it, SirSpork posts the best information I've seen on WA state's limits, RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 9.41.270:
The trooper he spoke with apparently interpreted that to prohibit the carrying of collapsible batons, which clearly are "capable of producing bodily harm."
But is that what the statute says?
There's an awful lot of commas in that awful sentence, enough to make it hard to read. But the independent clauses say, "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry.. [the aforementioned type of] weapon... at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
It doesn't say you can't carry that type of weapon. It says you can't do that in a way or place that intimidates. That's consistent with the WA law prohibiting intimidating show of a firearm.
In no way am I advocating breaking the law; I just want to understand it. Reading the first half of the sentence alone makes no sense: clearly, it is legal to carry (some) knives under (some) circumstances. When can you not? When it is intimidating to do so.
There are other, specific laws prohibiting certain kinds of knives (in WA state, we can't have switchblades), so if collapsible batons themselves were the issue, you'd think there would be a statute about them. If the above general law on intimidating weapons is all, does it really say what the trooper thinks it does?
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.
The trooper he spoke with apparently interpreted that to prohibit the carrying of collapsible batons, which clearly are "capable of producing bodily harm."
But is that what the statute says?
There's an awful lot of commas in that awful sentence, enough to make it hard to read. But the independent clauses say, "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry.. [the aforementioned type of] weapon... at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
It doesn't say you can't carry that type of weapon. It says you can't do that in a way or place that intimidates. That's consistent with the WA law prohibiting intimidating show of a firearm.
In no way am I advocating breaking the law; I just want to understand it. Reading the first half of the sentence alone makes no sense: clearly, it is legal to carry (some) knives under (some) circumstances. When can you not? When it is intimidating to do so.
There are other, specific laws prohibiting certain kinds of knives (in WA state, we can't have switchblades), so if collapsible batons themselves were the issue, you'd think there would be a statute about them. If the above general law on intimidating weapons is all, does it really say what the trooper thinks it does?
Last edited: