Post by: duckaholic on March 20, 2010, 08:30:53 PM
Visible handgun alarmed someone, police say
By John Branton
Columbian staff writer
Friday, March 19, 2010
Map
Map data ©2010 Google - Terms of Use
Map
Hybrid
see more mapped stories
A man who was seen in a Vancouver supermarket with a handgun visible in a holster — prompting a call to 911 on Friday — was ticketed and released with a court date, police said.
Shortly after 4 p.m., officers were sent to the Albertsons store at 5000 E. Fourth Plain Blvd., said Sgt. Greg Raquer with the Vancouver Police Department.
When officers approached the man who wore the gun he was cooperative. The loaded gun’s holster had two ammo magazines attached to it, said Officer Ilia Botvinnik.
Officers explained the law to the man, gave him a ticket for alleged unlawful carrying of a weapon and released him.
Under the law, Raquer said, a person can be ticketed if his display of a gun alarms people.
“I guess you could liken it to people yelling ‘Fire!’ in a movie theater,” Raquer said. “People get alarmed.”
He added, “Most responsible people don’t display their firearm in public.”
Had the man worn a coat, no one would have noticed the gun, Raquer said.
In that event, however, the gun would have been considered concealed, which is illegal unless the person had a concealed weapons permit, Botvinnik said.
The man in Albertsons did have a concealed weapons permit, although it doesn’t apply to open carrying, Botvinnik said.
Raquer declined to release the man’s name, saying the police report hadn’t been completed.
Vancouver police have had several such calls recently.
The state law that applies to the Albertsons case is RCW 9.41.270, Botvinnik said.
That law says: “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 text of the entire law, including exceptions such as carrying a firearm in your own home or place of business, can be read at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.as (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.as)
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 20, 2010, 09:00:57 PM
Post by: ADAMS on March 20, 2010, 09:01:43 PM
The operative langauge here is:
... 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.
Just because someone was alarmed does not mean that their alarm was warranted. A lawyer will get this dismissed. The cited man will fight this because it is a gross misdemeanor requiring that an offender lose their CPL.
Opencarry.org is already all over this:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/40666.html (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/40666.html)
Post by: satchel3006 on March 20, 2010, 09:06:37 PM
Post by: markts on March 20, 2010, 09:09:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 20, 2010, 09:26:33 PM
Post by: duckaholic on March 20, 2010, 09:37:53 PM
Post by: kennedy244 on March 20, 2010, 09:46:01 PM
Post by: ADAMS on March 20, 2010, 09:46:53 PM
I agree but the stupid people I blame here are the police. Who are supposed to know better. Several other WA police agencies have training that specifically covers such situations. Some agencies have adopted the following:
In order to support an enforcement action under this law the officer must be able to articulate (describe in a convincing manner) malicious intent by the suspect or circumstances that reasonably cause alarm to the public. In either case, because open carry in Washington is presumably legal, the articulation must include something beyond mere, open possession.
See the following Training Bulletins:
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=f1b316411fd4af474926f506a95ec282&action=downloads;cat=1 (http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=f1b316411fd4af474926f506a95ec282&action=downloads;cat=1)
Post by: bobcat on March 20, 2010, 10:28:54 PM
I also was reading the thread on the Open Carry forum. The wife of the Vancouver man who was ticketed just posted on there and said the one thing the newspaper article did not say was that the Vancouver Police also confiscated her husband's hangdun. :bash:
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on March 20, 2010, 10:30:46 PM
Quote
the officer must be able to articulate (describe in a convincing manner) malicious intent by the suspect
Yes, officer needs to brush up on the RCW.
Procecutor... I imagine, will throw this one out.
-Steve
Post by: bobcat on March 20, 2010, 11:56:09 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on March 21, 2010, 12:04:20 AM
Post by: Lincoln4 on March 21, 2010, 12:10:51 AM
Post by: duckaholic on March 21, 2010, 12:27:33 AM
I suspect his firearm will be returned when the prosecutor drops the charge...it should have never have even been taken from his possession let alone confiscated.
and just out of curiosity when did it become irresponsible to practice constitutional right? i open carry every day of the week but find it weird that i am however a very responsible adult, or maybe i was wrong because i practice my right as a American and carry my side arm openly.
..oh and yes i do have a c.p.l.
Post by: yorketransport on March 21, 2010, 01:05:42 PM
Now, my personal opinion is that the whiny moron who called the cops should get smacked on the back of the head and told to shut up. If he felt threatened by the man with the gun, why not just walk away. It's the same thing I tell my kids. If you don't like it, don't be a part of it. But, and it's a BIG but, if it's illegal, tell someone about it. As we all know though, open carry is perfectly legal. The idiot should have just walked away.
If the cops had only ticketed the man, I'd be mad at them for writing the ticket. It would be a pain for the gentleman who got the ticket, but it will certainly be thrown out and he wouldn't have to pay it. But to hear that they confiscated the gun as well, I'm seriously ticked off. >:( Now this is going to become a big ordeal that will cost everyone more money and time than any of them should have to spend on this issue. I imagine a lawsuit for wrongfull confiscation of the gun, lost income from time off work to fight the ticket, "punitive damages", and who knows what else, will be coming shortly. All of this is going to cost the victim time and money, and the Police Dept time and money. It's a waste of EVERYONE's time and money.
All of this because some whiny little baby, who doesn't know the local laws, "perceived" this man as a threat. He should have walked up and thanked the armed citizen for openly carrying and there by publicly proclaiming "Not on my watch!"
Andrew
Post by: Wile E. Hunter on March 21, 2010, 01:16:25 PM
Post by: Axle on March 21, 2010, 01:21:17 PM
Perhaps a document called 'the constitution' would be a good start.
Post by: Curly on March 21, 2010, 01:25:53 PM
All the crazy Pelosi that is going on these days is going to drive me insane......... I may have to stop reading the news for a few days to try to bring my blood pressure down... :o
Post by: Diehard0123 on March 21, 2010, 01:38:33 PM
This situation is utterly stupid! If they guy was walking around with his hand on the gun that would be different. Law enforcement are trained that they do not walk around with their hand on their service weapon for this reason, same with playing with hand cuffs such as ratcheting them or twirling them on their finger. If the law was as the Vancouver PD interprates it then we would all be in violation of the law when we go into the woods with a rifle to hunt. The Antis would have a field day with this. All they would need to do is call 911 when ever they see a hunter in the field and say that they are intimidated. If I go out and play a game of baseball and someone feels that my baseball bat is intimidating then the same rule would apply. If I had the same bat in my hand while confronting some punk and slapping the barrel of the bat into my palm then that would be consided intimidation.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 21, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Something is really wrong with this equation.....the officer and that department need a good lesson from a good attorney, like in a law suit for wrongful whatever and damages. Cop needs leave without pay and someone to teach him the law.
Post by: huntnphool on March 21, 2010, 02:04:07 PM
Post by: boneaddict on March 21, 2010, 02:08:44 PM
Post by: duckaholic on March 21, 2010, 02:09:49 PM
“Most responsible people don’t display their firearm in public".
and it says "Officers explained the law" what book were they trained out of? because apparently they don't know the laws them self, i don't know what u would call a cop that dose such a thing because he sure is not a "law enforcement" officer you have to know the law to enforce it at least i thought that is how things worked :dunno:
Post by: high country on March 21, 2010, 02:13:56 PM
Post by: Thenewguy on March 21, 2010, 02:14:26 PM
Post by: shoot-em-dead on March 21, 2010, 02:22:28 PM
Post by: corktex on March 21, 2010, 02:25:51 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on March 21, 2010, 03:15:03 PM
Post by: Deep Forks on March 21, 2010, 03:25:36 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on March 21, 2010, 03:32:13 PM
Sadly, most officers are trained only on how to collect revenue from motorists. They need to train them on a citizens rights.
Perhaps a document called 'the constitution' would be a good start.
Ok, i have to chime in on my two thoughts here. This above statement is just ignorant. I agree that the officers involved in this situation probably made a mistake. I won't say definitely as I wasn't there and did not witness what this guy was doing. I also fully agree with someone's right to open carry. However, I also think there are definitely times when openly carrying is not a wise choice. There are plenty of people out there who want to do away with our gun rights. There are also plenty of people out there that couldn't care what happens with our gun rights as they believe it does not affect them. Then there are those of US who staunchly believe in our rights covered under the 2nd amendment.
I will often openly carry when I go hunting and hiking. I don't see alot of upside to our public relations effort by open carrying in highly public places such as Wal Mart, Starbucks, etc as I feel it's often just an attempt to prove a point or poking a stick at a bees nest. Why push that group of people over that doesn't care about gun rights over the edge to the anti's by shocking or alarming them unnecessarily. This is my cliff notes version so as to avoid a too lengthy post.
Post by: Wile E. Hunter on March 21, 2010, 03:53:45 PM
my :twocents:
Post by: ADAMS on March 21, 2010, 04:08:52 PM
And the person who has the right to make that choice does not include any member of the Vancouver PD. This poor guy has to answer for having been cited for a criminal gross misdemeanor. He had his handgun confiscated. What if that had been his only handgun and firearm for protection both home and abroad? Thanks to the Vancouver PD (Let's hope the prosecutor's office has more sense), he has been forced to incur thousands of dollars to defend himself in this case with a criminal conviction, fine and loss of his CPL hanging over his head.
"Why push that group of people over that doesn't care about gun rights over the edge to the anti's by shocking or alarming them unnecessarily."
First off, this wasn't a situation where he and seven others all converged on the grocery story packing in plain view to make a statement, prove a point or poke a bees nest. I understand your point but there is also a legitimate counter argument that only through responsibly exercising your right to open carry in run of the mill situations can you encourage an awareness on the part of the public that it is not just legal but OK too. Bad guys don't open carry. There was a time in our history when it was concealed carry that was what you would worry about. Why would someone be hiding a deadly weapon?
What the Hell good is the right to open carry if it can't be exercised due to alarm on the part of members of the public who do not understand that it is perfectly legal and that it poses no public safety hazard? Wile E. Hunter made an excellent point. The police officer's statement that "A person can be ticketed if his display of a gun alarms people" and "Most responsible people don’t display their firearm in public" is a perfect example of why education is so important.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 21, 2010, 04:13:15 PM
I don't think the 2nd amendment was intended to politically correct. I hear where you're coming from, but I tend to agree more with Wiley's statement. Use it or loose it. With that said, use it wisely and with respect......but certainly don't shy away from it. That's almost like saying you can't.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 21, 2010, 04:15:15 PM
"However, I also think there are definitely times when openly carrying is not a wise choice."
And the person who has the right to make that choice does not include any member of the Vancouver PD. This poor guy has to answer for having been arrested for a criminal gross misdemeanor. He had his handgun confiscated. What if that had been his only handgun and firearm for protection both home and abroad? Thanks to the Vancouver PD, he has been forced to incur thousands of dollars to defend himself in this case with a criminal conviction, fine and loss of his CPL hanging over his head.
"Why push that group of people over that doesn't care about gun rights over the edge to the anti's by shocking or alarming them unnecessarily."
First off, this wasn't a situation where this and seven others all converged on the grocery story packing in plain view to make a statement, prove a point or poke a bees nest. I understand your point but there is also a legitimate counter argument that only through responsibly exercising your right to open carry in run of the mill situations can you encourage an awareness on the part of the public that it is not just legal but OK too. Bad guys don't open carry. There was a time in our history when it was concealed carry that was what you would worry about. Why would someone be hiding a deadly weapon?
What the Hell good is the right to open carry if it can't be exercised due to alarm on the part of members of the public who do not understand that it is perfectly legal and that it poses no public safety hazard?
I completely agree......my comment was the condensed version....lol.
Post by: high country on March 21, 2010, 05:01:00 PM
Sadly, most officers are trained only on how to collect revenue from motorists. They need to train them on a citizens rights.However, I also think there are definitely times when openly carrying is not a wise choice. There are plenty of people out there who want to do away with our gun rights. There are also plenty of people out there that couldn't care what happens with our gun rights as they believe it does not affect them. Then there are those of US who staunchly believe in our rights covered under the 2nd amendment.
Perhaps a document called 'the constitution' would be a good start.
.
canada is much safer and has nicer amenities in prison, perhaps those who dislike our constitution so much should move north...........I will drive them
Post by: satchel3006 on March 21, 2010, 05:02:51 PM
Alarming fashion :dunno: :dunno:
it was a joke
Post by: duckaholic on March 21, 2010, 05:26:05 PM
:yike: :yike: :yike: how do you not see a upside? i mean what the hell is the point to open carry in the woods??? it is like you are scared to show your true colors so you go "hide" in the woods with them or maybe you are afraid of the "people out there who want to do away with our gun rights" and have no plan on fighting for your rights. >:(. it sounds like you are just throwing in the towel. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on March 21, 2010, 05:37:56 PM
Post by: duckaholic on March 21, 2010, 05:41:22 PM
see now that would be a plan. unlike going for a hike in the woods.
Post by: Wile E. Hunter on March 21, 2010, 05:42:55 PM
What we need to do is make it not so uncommon for people to see. The more that do it the more it will be considered normal and maybe lesson the shock. :dunno::yeah:
Exactly.
Post by: yorketransport on March 21, 2010, 07:39:59 PM
There's nothing wrong with respecting someones views even if you don't agree with them. I disapprove of smoking and drinking. They're proven to be harmful the the user's physical health, and it's pretty much accepted that they also pose a physically and emotional risk to those around the user. But I don't feel need to advertise my beliefs in a way that will cause conflict with others. I'll share my views openly when it's appropriate, and keep them to my self if they won't add anything constructive to the situation. The same goes for politics and religion. I'm an atheist, which often times doesn't go over well in public. I'm not ashamed of who I am, what I am, or what I believe. But I just don't see the need to stir the pot to promote my beliefs. I wouldn't wear a shirt that says "I don't believe, because I don't have to". After all, the Constitution gives me the right to practice whichever religion, or lack of, that I choose. It's just a courtesy.
I support open carry. Period. But I also promote giving a positive image of gun owners by showing a little respect for those who don't share our views. I view it the same as going out hunting, shooting a great trophy deer, then driving home with it strapped to the hood of your truck. For those of us that hunt, it's not a big deal. But it's not respectful of those who don't hunt.
Andrew
Post by: high country on March 21, 2010, 08:11:31 PM
I don't know that more people practicing open carry is really going to help much. If I'm not working, I have a weapon on. I'd be packing even then if it weren't a specifically stated in my work contract that I cannot. But I don't carry openly. I'm not overly concerned about my gun being noticed, but I make an effort not to flash it around. It's not that I'm ashamed or trying to hide the gun, it's simply as a courtesy to others. Not everyone loves guns. I'm fine with that. Many people don't approve of guns. While I disagree with their opinion, I'm fine with that as well. I know that some people are just uncomfortable around guns for whatever reason. Why would I want to go and intentionally make a stranger feel uneasy or uncomfortable? You may call it being politically correct, I call it being polite. And I don't know about any of you, but that's something that I require of my children, and a quality that I respect in other adults.
There's nothing wrong with respecting someones views even if you don't agree with them. I disapprove of smoking and drinking. They're proven to be harmful the the user's physical health, and it's pretty much accepted that they also pose a physically and emotional risk to those around the user. But I don't feel need to advertise my beliefs in a way that will cause conflict with others. I'll share my views openly when it's appropriate, and keep them to my self if they won't add anything constructive to the situation. The same goes for politics and religion. I'm an atheist, which often times doesn't go over well in public. I'm not ashamed of who I am, what I am, or what I believe. But I just don't see the need to stir the pot to promote my beliefs. I wouldn't wear a shirt that says "I don't believe, because I don't have to". After all, the Constitution gives me the right to practice whichever religion, or lack of, that I choose. It's just a courtesy.
I support open carry. Period. But I also promote giving a positive image of gun owners by showing a little respect for those who don't share our views. I view it the same as going out hunting, shooting a great trophy deer, then driving home with it strapped to the hood of your truck. For those of us that hunt, it's not a big deal. But it's not respectful of those who don't hunt.
Andrew
I 100% agree with where you are coming from.......except you are lumpin gun owners as a group. that is the problem. the group should not be gun owners, but instead, americans.....it is everyones right in this great nation
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2010, 06:34:33 PM
Yorketransport I think your comments are what most people AND most gun owners think.
We should all thank our lucky stars that SOMEONE has the Stones to test the law... Laws can be overturned from time to time if there isn't a paper trail that shows continual upholding of the law... If we NEVER exercises it we loose it!
I may act more like Yorketransport, but I'm happy as Adams that this guy put himself in the cross hairs for me! :twocents:
:police: :nono:
Post by: ADAMS on March 25, 2010, 07:23:58 PM
You will notice from an earlier post of mine on this thread that several agencies have training materials that instruct that mere open carry, in and of itself, will not be held to warrant alarm. If my neighbor is alarmed by the sight of a black man walking in our neighborhood and calls the police, he or she maybe alarmed but that alarm would not be warranted.
It's the guys who illegally carry concealed that you need to worry about. Did you hear about the gang shooting at the Lloyd Center mall in Portland today? Minors with loaded handguns involved in what appears to have been a gang related fight that went from fisticuffs right to firearms.
I suspect (Does anyone know for sure?) that the mall is a "gun free zone" too.
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2010, 07:40:22 PM
Post by: ADAMS on March 25, 2010, 07:43:56 PM
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
The mall, including its parking lot, is private property. In order to maximize the enjoyment, convenience, and safety of our guests, the following standards of conduct are set forth for the purpose of protecting the center’s legitimate business interest. Any violation of the code interferes with the commercial nature and function of the center. As a visitor on this property, you are prohibited from engaging in any of the following activities while on this property.
Examples of such activities include, but are not limited to:
Carrying or possessing any weapons of any kind, including weapons carried pursuant to a valid license.
http://www.lloydcentermall.com/info/codeofconduct.cfm (http://www.lloydcentermall.com/info/codeofconduct.cfm)
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2010, 07:47:50 PM
Post by: ADAMS on March 25, 2010, 08:05:30 PM
Post by: brush hunter on April 03, 2010, 07:02:05 PM
Post by: muleysgirl13 on April 03, 2010, 07:48:07 PM
Post by: NWHydroprint on April 06, 2010, 09:13:44 PM
NWH
Post by: brush hunter on April 07, 2010, 07:11:07 PM
Post by: Special T on April 08, 2010, 09:09:41 AM
Post by: runamuk on April 09, 2010, 02:31:18 PM
Your sister is wrong, at least in Washington state. The law states You cannot carry a firearm into any public establishment that has a sing prohibiting firearms at an entrance point.
I hate when we do this..."some law says"...please post a link or copy of the WAC or RCW so we can read the actual law. This state has a notorious amount of "laws" that contradict other "laws" so seeing them as written with all the references to exceptions is very helpful...at least for me ;)
Post by: grundy53 on April 09, 2010, 03:14:34 PM
Your sister is wrong, at least in Washington state. The law states You cannot carry a firearm into any public establishment that has a sing prohibiting firearms at an entrance point.
i think our constitution trumps that. i believe that's what nwh's sister (who is a prosecutor and probably knows what she's talking about) was saying.
Post by: brush hunter on April 10, 2010, 05:18:06 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on April 11, 2010, 05:59:41 AM
Q: I have a concealed-weapons license and can carry a handgun on my person concealed. Can I carry the same firearm "open" and not have to worry about someone calling the police on me?
I've heard that Washington has a "open-carry" law that doesn't require any license as long as the firearm is within full view on a person. Is this true?
If someone sees me carrying a firearm am I in possible trouble with the law?
And pertaining to concealment: If I conceal a firearm on my person but you can see the outline of the gun is this cause for concern or is it OK as long as it's "concealed?"
A: Here's information from the King County Sheriff's Office:
Washington is an "open- carry" state. That means a person may openly carry a firearm (pistol, rifle or shotgun) in public without a concealed-pistol license.
Of course, as with any other "right" there are exceptions. A firearm may not be taken into a courtroom, jail, school, bar or parts of airports, for example.
In addition, there may be limits as to age, felon, DV conviction, protection order, or specific court order. …
RCW 9.41.270 provides that it is unlawful for a person to carry, exhibit, display or draw any firearm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. A violation is a gross misdemeanor.
This statute is very fact-specific, but in general, merely walking around in public with the gun properly secured in an exposed holster does not constitute a violation.
A court will consider "time, place, manner" factors, such as the time of day, whether the area is residential, urban or countryside, the manner in which the weapon is being carried, the size and type of weapon, whether the clip is visibly attached, high-crime area, whether the person waved it around, tossed it when stopped, etc.
In State v. Spencer, the court … upheld a conviction for RCW 9.41.270 when the person carried an AK-47 with the clip attached on the person's shoulder at 10 p.m., while walking briskly through a residential area with his head down and avoiding eye contact.
In State v. Mitchell, officers on night patrol saw the defendant and a companion walking down the street in a residential area in Seattle. The defendant was carrying a semi-automatic handgun and as officers passed, they observed him tuck it into his waistband. When the officers stopped them, the defendant tossed the gun into the bushes. The court held that openly carrying such a weapon at night in an urban residential area was sufficient to warrant reasonable suspicion that the crime of unlawful display of a firearm was being committed.
In State v. Craig, the court held that an eyewitness testimony that a person driving by in a car pointing a gun at the witness was sufficient to support a finding that officers had probable cause to believe that the person committed the crime of unlawfully displaying (a) weapon.
What might be acceptable behavior on a country road in hunting season would be cause for alarm in an urban residential neighborhood in a high crime area at night. Nonetheless, again typically carrying a properly holstered gun openly will not pass sufficient muster for a violation.
RCW 9.41.230 prohibits a person from aiming any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards a human being. It also prohibits willfully discharging a firearm in a public place or in any place where a person might be endangered. Public places do not include locations where it discharging firearms is authorized.
RCW 9.41.250 prohibits "furtively carrying with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol or other dangerous weapon."
While "open carry" is legal in public, private property is a different matter.
Private property owners may limit individuals' right to carry on their property. This includes quasi-public property such as shopping malls, restaurants and retail stores.
The notice may take two forms. First, if a property is clearly marked with very visible signs at all entrances that say "No Firearms Allowed," then it is illegal to bring a firearm onto the property, with or without a CPL. The crime would be trespass.
If there is no signage and the person with the weapon is asked to leave by the owner or agent and the person refuses, (deputies) can also use the trespass statute. …
State law controls this area of the law and preempts local jurisdictions from passing more restrictive laws on carrying firearms.
Post by: CP on April 11, 2010, 11:27:07 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on April 11, 2010, 05:58:47 PM