Post by: thefirefighter on July 10, 2008, 10:52:50 PM
Post by: KillBilly on July 11, 2008, 05:47:43 AM
Post by: KillBilly on July 11, 2008, 06:10:18 AM
Post by: CP on July 11, 2008, 06:58:03 AM
I do while hiking, hunting and fishing.
While making a withdrawal from the bank? No! Perfectly legal to do so but common sense tells me it isn’t a good idea.
Post by: thefirefighter on July 11, 2008, 08:22:40 AM
Post by: MIKEXRAY on July 11, 2008, 09:34:39 AM
Post by: Slenk on July 11, 2008, 10:42:51 AM
We do have conseal carry permits but have never been asked for them.
Slenk
Post by: thefirefighter on July 11, 2008, 11:19:15 AM
Washington is an "open carry" state for firearms. This means a person may carry a firearm in an exposed holster without any kind of permit unless there is something that makes it specifically illegal. Visit www.OpenCarry.org to learn more.
RCW 9.41.270: …Unlawful carrying occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon “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” This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm.
Post by: KillBilly on July 11, 2008, 11:23:35 AM
RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.
Again, here is the RCW on where weapons/handguns are not permitted
Post by: thefirefighter on July 12, 2008, 08:59:22 PM
Post by: scudmaster on July 13, 2008, 12:54:56 AM
well mike i know 100% sure that it is legal anytime and almost anywhere except for places that are in the rcw's and you cant open carry where you cant carry a concealed weapons license but what im trying to figure out the little things because it states in law.
Washington is an "open carry" state for firearms. This means a person may carry a firearm in an exposed holster without any kind of permit unless there is something that makes it specifically illegal. Visit www.OpenCarry.org to learn more.
RCW 9.41.270: …Unlawful carrying occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon “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” This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm.
It is legal, but the question is WHY? CPLs are easy to get in this state and the "warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" clause has no bright line case law that I am aware of. that it one of those clauses that should give you much concern as is is very broad and could be interpreted in many ways, to include just the open carry of it in a certain time and place. Do you want to go to court and have a judge or a jury in Seattle decide what they think warrants alarm? I know I sure wouldn't
Additionally, read the exceptions that allow concealed carry without a permit. Anytime you go to or from a " lawful outdoor recreational activity" you are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. That is just the start; RCW 9.41.060 if you want to read it.
$1,500 for the retainer of a defense attorney seems a bit much to pay even if you are right. :twocents:
Post by: CP on July 13, 2008, 06:21:10 AM
yea i did today not a problem
Good for you! I must admit that I don’t because there a lot a people that are “pretty sure” about the law but have no problem voicing an uneducated opinion. I don’t want to be bothered by having to deal with them or the other hassles that could come up. Our society has instilled in us that guns are bad and we need to hide them if we carry them, as if we are ashamed of them. Of course I’m taking the easy, go with the flow route.
Good for you for exercising your right, even though it may not be the most convenient course of action. A right unexercised is indeed a right lost.
Post by: ICEMAN on July 13, 2008, 08:50:17 AM
yea i did today not a problem
Good for you for exercising your right, even though it may not be the most convenient course of action. A right unexercised is indeed a right lost.
I disagree. So you are saying that we lose rights if we do not exercise them? Please explain...thanks.
Post by: scudmaster on July 13, 2008, 09:47:33 AM
yea i did today not a problem
Good for you! I must admit that I don’t because there a lot a people that are “pretty sure” about the law but have no problem voicing an uneducated opinion. I don’t want to be bothered by having to deal with them or the other hassles that could come up. Our society has instilled in us that guns are bad and we need to hide them if we carry them, as if we are ashamed of them. Of course I’m taking the easy, go with the flow route.
Good for you for exercising your right, even though it may not be the most convenient course of action. A right exercised is indeed a right lost.
By carrying open in an urban setting, I don't believe you are going to change anyones mind about how they feel about guns. That is set by their parents, friends, coworkers, even people's personal experiences with guns. And even most that are pro gun are going to think it strange. Those that are indifferent about guns are probably going to be offended. And those that are against guns will probably call 911. Think of the statement you are making, I guarantee that 95+% of the people coming across someone open carrying in an urban setting have a negative reaction. It too many people do it, you only need one bad incident and the law will change. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, to be foolish and free is a condition that has never existed and can never exist. You have the right, but exercise it wisely.
CP the purpose of carrying concealed is not for shame or hiding of the gun out of embarrassment; It is for the tactical advantage. If you carry concealed, you have the advantage of surprise. If you carry open, I hope you have a good retention holster and you actually practice gun retention drills. You put other people at risk if you don't. Gun take away drills are common practice in jail and prison and if you have a cheap or non-retentive holster you are being negligent.
Too many cops who do practice those drills are killed with their own gun, for you to ignore those risks. Think of Deputy Herzog in New Castle in 2002 and Deputy Gallegos in Manson 2003. And those are just the ones of recent memory in WA :twocents:
Post by: sisu on July 13, 2008, 10:34:03 AM
My only experience with open carry of weapons of any sort has been in Alaska. A lot of "fringe" element butt hole-e-o's like to has a fixed blade knife on their hip, usually they length that is useless for hunting or fishing. I've seen them in bars drunk, loud and belligerent beyond the limits.
And I am not talking about bars in Anchorage...
Even before Alaska has the right to carry concealed I always had a piece in the pocket or jacket just for these butt heads. Imagine the same personality type with an open carry law for firearms
I am adding this: Open carry while fishing, hunting, riding ATVs, riding horses, mules, in other words in the out of doors is one area where I believe it's perfectly normal, but to suggest this for town, malls etc would be foolish.
Post by: MikeWalking on July 13, 2008, 01:26:53 PM
http://opencarry.org/WA.HTML I was surprised to read the Training Bulletins for the King Co. Sheriffs dept.
Post by: thefirefighter on July 13, 2008, 09:12:13 PM
Post by: jeff100 on July 23, 2008, 11:49:07 PM
Happy trails...Jeff
Post by: scudmaster on July 24, 2008, 09:19:32 AM
Yes, open carry IS legal everywhere it's legal to carry a gun in the state of WA. Most of the time these days, I carry everywhere I go. I've been carrying a concealed weapon for approx. 28 years. In the last two years, I've gotten serious about training and taken some excellent professional defensive (combat) handgun training that is available locally. It's basically the same training the police get. I carry open in the field, but never in town. The reason is simple. I carry in urban areas for self defense. Self defense against a violent criminal element. IF you are carrying open, all the scumbags who may be bent on committing a violent act, will know you are carrying, and may target you because you represent a threat to them and their plans. Guess who they're gonna take out first, if they're planning on or committing a crime and you happen along carrying open? It's also my opinion, that most people without formal training, will most likely either not use their gun, or have their gun taken away IF confronted by a REAL bad guy. I did not have this opinion until after I had received my training and became aware of just how unprepared I really was (mentally) to use a firearm for self defense outside my home, prior to my training. Not only do you need the skill with the weapon, but you must have the mental mindset to take the fight to the enemy when least expecting a confrontation that constitutes a life threatening act. So, in town, I carry concealed. Always. Not to keep from offending anyone, but to protect myself. I practice shooting from a concealed carry as well. Every week. In the field it's different, and I carry open most of the time UNLESS I know I will be in an area that contains a lot of people. Personally, I think everyone who is responsible should exercise their 2nd amendment right, and get the necessary training to be effective exercising that right. After all, an armed society, is a polite society.
Happy trails...Jeff
+1
Post by: Bean Counter on July 28, 2008, 01:52:01 PM
I used to open carry a semi-auto in addition to my rifle. The reasoning was something to the effect of having something I could draw easily if ambushed by a wolf pack or jumped from behind by a cougar. I may continue the practice when hunting in those areas but in areas where I"m not likely to encounter those two I think I'll be doing less and less of that. Just too much weight IMHO.
Incidentally, the one time I was ever paid a visit by 2x WDFW Enforcement officers was when I was open carrying. They saw it and paid no mention of it. They were interested in verifying the legality of my hunting rifle, gave me a map of the area, and were on their way. Amazing how everyone is much more courteous when there are lots of guns going around.
Post by: MikeWalking on July 28, 2008, 06:34:11 PM
Quote
First off i would not OC in Seattle due to the fact that 90% of Seattle is liberals who have a fear of firearms, hunting, outdoor activities and anything that could "jeopardise our environment" so i would cc there
I have seen people OC in Seattle, and no one seemed to mind. I did see some eye brows raised about one guy. His Revolver hanging well below his jacket on a cheap belt. ( It might have been the 25lbs of Bananas he was carrying or his filthy appearance?) But no one said anything. With Gang problems on the rise again I'd worry more about some punk pos seeing it as some kind of challenge. And forcing some kind of reaction.
I liked this city much better 30 years ago.
Post by: jeff100 on July 28, 2008, 06:57:44 PM
Quote
With Gang problems on the rise again I'd worry more about some punk pos seeing it as some kind of challenge. And forcing some kind of reaction.
I liked this city much better 30 years ago.
Exactly my point. Some gangsta wannabe could see yer weapon and decide to shoot you. Then five of his buddies will swear to the police that YOU threatened HIM and he had to defend himself. The shooter's mother will claim he's a good kid who's been victimized by the man. The NAACP will cry racism and threaten a lawsuit. You're dead, it's no contest. Last man standing. Unless the kid is a felon in possession, he's probably gonna walk.
A few years ago up on 99 a few miles south of Seattle, I stopped at a small grocery store to buy something to drink. It was noon thirty something, middle of the day. A group of about 6 black kids were hanging out in the parking lot. We made eye contact as I walked thru the parking lot and they immediately came after me. With them trailing about 50 feet behind me and closing fast, I ducked into the store, walked straight thru the store to the back into the employee area and out through a door out the back of the store, circled around and hauled ass out'a there.
Now don't call me a racist, these kids could'a just as easily been white trash, whatever. The point is you never know, when things are gonna get dangerous....and that's not the time to be exercising your right to show everyone you're carrying...
And yeah, I've been here since 1967. IMO Seattle was a hell of a lot better town before the girls and geldings took it over...
Post by: MountainWalk on July 28, 2008, 07:02:17 PM
Post by: sisu on July 28, 2008, 07:27:23 PM
Yep, that is one of the reasons I don't live there any longer.QuoteWith Gang problems on the rise again I'd worry more about some punk pos seeing it as some kind of challenge. And forcing some kind of reaction.
I liked this city much better 30 years ago.
Exactly my point. Some gangsta wannabe could see yer weapon and decide to shoot you. Then five of his buddies will swear to the police that YOU threatened HIM and he had to defend himself. The shooter's mother will claim he's a good kid who's been victimized by the man. The NAACP will cry racism and threaten a lawsuit. You're dead, it's no contest. Last man standing. Unless the kid is a felon in possession, he's probably gonna walk.
A few years ago up on 99 a few miles south of Seattle, I stopped at a small grocery store to buy something to drink. It was noon thirty something, middle of the day. A group of about 6 black kids were hanging out in the parking lot. We made eye contact as I walked thru the parking lot and they immediately came after me. With them trailing about 50 feet behind me and closing fast, I ducked into the store, walked straight thru the store to the back into the employee area and out through a door out the back of the store, circled around and hauled ass out'a there.
Now don't call me a racist, these kids could'a just as easily been white trash, whatever. The point is you never know, when things are gonna get dangerous....and that's not the time to be exercising your right to show everyone you're carrying...
And yeah, I've been here since 1967. IMO Seattle was a hell of a lot better town before the girls and geldings took it over...
I was in Mountain View one evening in Anchorage. I had my Rott with me and my fishing shotgun in the front seat. I stopped to get some gasoline but apparently while I was looking at the pumps I attracted some attention from two punks. They started strolling toward me, so I gave Kuba her watch command and I walked to the passenger door and pulled the shotgun out but not at them. They looked and turned 180 degrees waling back to where they came from. Kuba was watching the two with interest, but she did not make a sound only steady watchful eyes. Rotts are the best damn dog I've ever owned for protecting the family. My lab is good but those damn Rotts can put the scare of Jesus in most people especially when they give off their werewolf growl.
Post by: jdb on July 28, 2008, 07:42:28 PM
Post by: Jekemi on August 06, 2008, 12:09:26 PM
Post by: CP on August 06, 2008, 12:20:30 PM
Post by: jeff100 on August 06, 2008, 12:33:31 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on August 07, 2008, 01:39:20 PM
Shawn
Post by: MikeWalking on August 07, 2008, 03:25:57 PM
Quote
Well, as you know, it is not legal in Seattle. Our illustrious mayor has taken it upon himself to unilaterally declare open display or concealed handguns illegal within the city limits. This is in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. The recent DC decision might give him pause but I doubt it. This law is also in violation of State laws but who is Olympia, with the governing crowd we have down there will challenge the mayor on this one. I'm with Uncle Ted: "The 2nd Amendment is my concealed weapons permit."
The State prohibits Cities and Counties from making any Gun Law stricter than State law. All the Mayor (Emperor Nickels the Pink) did, so far, is order staff to draft an ordinance baning guns on City property.
Geesh, when's his term gonna be over already?
Post by: CP on August 08, 2008, 06:50:44 AM
I represented a guy for open conceal years and years ago. I can't remember where, but if I recall correctly it was a municipal code that controlled in that case. I think the RCW's are silent to the issue.
Shawn
I shouldn’t argue law with a lawyer but since 1994 municipal code doesn’t matter:
RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
Post by: ICEMAN on August 08, 2008, 09:36:37 AM
Post by: scudmaster on August 08, 2008, 10:11:41 AM
Uh....CP....dont worry about arguing with a lawyer....I know laywers.....If you weren't arguing with them, they would feel like something was wrong.
Yeah that! :yeah:
Post by: Jekemi on August 14, 2008, 09:33:14 AM
Dear David:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding a “gun free” policy for city property.
The gun regulations in our state are some of the weakest in the country. While we have severe penalties for those who commit crimes with guns, state laws do very little to prevent convicted felons, children and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. For many years the legislature has failed to pass common sense legislation that would protect our citizens by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. For example, our state allows mentally ill persons who have been involuntarily committed for fewer than 90 days to purchase and possess firearms. This year, the City of Seattle and the State Attorney General supported legislation that would have closed this mental health loophole, but the legislature failed to act on it.
The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that cities may impose conditions related to firearms use on city property. The court held that certain types of firearms regulations related to city-owned property do not violate the State’s preemption statute.
I have directed city departments to adopt rules and policies related to firearms and other dangerous weapons that are permitted under the state’s preemption law. These rules do not infringe on Second Amendment rights nor do they violate the state’s laws and ordinances regulating firearms. While these new rules may inconvenience some gun owners who wish to bring their guns on city property, they will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city.
We are currently studying how to appropriately enforce this order, beginning with signage and other notices of the rules. No rule, policy or regulation can stop all violent acts from occurring. However, we do know that by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur.
Thank you again for contacting the City of Seattle.
Sincerely,
GREG NICKELS
Mayor of Seattle
Post by: scudmaster on August 14, 2008, 09:56:16 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 14, 2008, 09:59:50 AM
Nickels is a clown! By his logic, banning handguns in DC should have made it the safest city in the country. We know how that turned out.
Great point! :chuckle:
Post by: tlbradford on August 14, 2008, 10:02:46 AM
I have directed city departments to adopt rules and policies related to firearms and other dangerous weapons that are permitted under the state’s preemption law. These rules do not infringe on Second Amendment rights nor do they violate the state’s laws and ordinances regulating firearms. While these new rules may inconvenience some gun owners who wish to bring their guns on city property, they will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city.
Thank goodness that taking firearms away from lawful citizens will result in safer activities. I could name hundreds of instances where law abiding gun owners shot up a crowd, mugged a pedestrian, committed murder, or was involved in a car jacking. Where do these guys get any of their information, what a moron.
Quote
We are currently studying how to appropriately enforce this order, beginning with signage and other notices of the rules. No rule, policy or regulation can stop all violent acts from occurring. However, we do know that by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur.
Those signs are an invitation not a deterant to criminals. If you want a deterent to gun related crimes, put up signs that say "All employees on city property are armed and trained to inflict deadly force on would-be criminals."
Post by: Dave Workman on August 14, 2008, 06:13:54 PM
Item #1
Open carry is legal as noted earlier. It is protected by state law, the state constitution and two appeals court rulings with which I am familiar.
It is not "absolute," however, because of RCW 9.41.270 (1) you can be detained and even prosecuted in the event somebody is alarmed at the sight of your handgun.
Thanks to a guy named Lonnie Wilson, a lot of police departments are now up to speed on open carry, and they seem to be backing away from arresting people for the mere act of having a holstered gun in plain sight...with some exceptions involving some over-zealous police officers who, according to reports I've received, seem to be making up the law as they go along until somebody calls them on it.
As to Hizzoner Mayor Nickels, the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, both based in Bellevue, have already fired a legal shot across his bow, and he hasn't really done anything yet but talk about a ban, which is wholly illegal under state preemption, and I believe he knows it. His attorneys may argue otherwise just to see how far they can push this, but let's hope they are not so foolish as to actually try to institute such a ban by "royal fiat."
Post by: MountainWalk on August 14, 2008, 10:40:38 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on August 15, 2008, 04:05:52 PM
Quote
I suggest that everyone who owns a gun, sporting or defense, get Dave's phamplet. The name escapes me, but it is totally complete. And no, I dont know Dave.
Dave Workman. He also makes some really fine Holsters.