The good news in this case is that the ticket will be thrown out in an instant, because a holstered firearm on a calm-demeanored person doesn't WARRANT alarm, regardless of whether or not it CAUSES alarm.
Posted on 03/20/2010 11:45:22 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
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.aspx?cite=9.41.270
John Branton: 360-735-4513 or john.branton@columbian.com.
I think he will be able to get rid of the ticket because wearing it in the manner and place he did did not “warrent alarm”.
Yes but it should have never been issued and an attorney is expensive and he will not be able to recover those costs to defend his rights.
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.”
_________________________________________________________
What kind of officer spews out this garbage???
This is Canada, they can make their own laws, and quite frankly, it is none of my business (I have liberals because they are always sticking their noses into other people's business). Nonetheless, I find the argument ludicrous. Conditional laws make no sense because the encourage the whim of the people to be the law. Open carry should either be legal or not. Let the arguments be based on the merits of having open carry, not on some persons daily feelings.
What idiocy. The wording basically says I'll get cited for displaying or drawing my weapon if I actually needed to protect myself. In that situation, somebody is bound to be intimidated or alarmed.
This is not Canada, this is Vancouver WASHINGTON. This is the United States, think across the river from Portland, Oregon.
You are so correct. That is what politicians and their police puppets want: To make conflicting laws so not only are all people violators but to keep them unarmed so they will be slaves rather than citizens.
My bad and thanks for the correction. My argument still holds -- stupid law -- do away with it. Now I can voice my opinion.
The good news in this case is that the ticket will be thrown out in an instant, because a holstered firearm on a calm-demeanored person doesn't WARRANT alarm, regardless of whether or not it CAUSES alarm.
Walking around town while wearing clothes is legal —can I get a ticket for that, if it doesn’t strike the fancy of some of those I live around...?
Go there every day w/ the gun,.
.
repeat calls to 911 will be harassment
This is Washington State. Never could figure out the way they worded that law. I imagine like most laws, it was meant one way and is enforced another way. A VERY subjective law: “....and in 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.”
Probably was meant at first for a situation such as you see your neighbor on the street and say you want to talk about them encroaching on your property with all their crap, they start to leave and ignore you so you flash your gun and say “I want to talk about it now”.
I know how about a local chapter of the NRA shows up outftted with guns.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
That's the entire problem with all these stupid laws being interpreted on the streets however it needs to be to issue a citation.
If he decides he can't afford to defend himself he'll plead guilty to a lesser charge, and that will be on his record.
Heck even the charge will show up on his record on some background checks no matter how it turns out.
A Jack-booted thug.....
A JBT.
That is the problem, it should not be on his records and he should not have to “pay” for something that should have never been issued. It is not JUST, it is WRONG.
It's not a stupid law, it's a stupid cop. From the article's comment thread:
Excerpt from the training for the King County Sheriff’s OfficeTITLE OF TRAINING:
Open Carry of Firearm in Washington06/06 1
RCW 9.41.270 states “It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm 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 others.” Can the men be charged? Obviously people are looking at them a second time when they see the guns in plain view.POSSIBLE ANSWERS
A. Yes
B. NoDETAILED ANSWER / EXPLANATION: (provide sources / references)
The correct answer is: B. No
In this law, mere possession of an openly carried handgun is not prohibited. 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.
RCW 9.41.300
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.