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.
The NRA, GOA & every other gun group should call for a once a month OPEN CARRY DAY - where all gun owners deliberately go out & wear their weapons openly in public. It should be well announced - both to police & the general public - so everyone understands that it’s legal. It’s the person raising the ‘alarm’ who should be ticketed for causing a disturbance!
Where was that picture when I was doing a “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a police officer” poster?
This is an “anti-brandishing” law, and the misuse of it.
Beat me by just over a minute.
What’s this country coming to?
Oh, it’s Canada.
A typical one, these days?
They'd get more alarmed if you taped everyone's mouth shut before going into the theater, and someone spotted a small fire, but could not yell "fire".
Maybe folks should "get alarmed" when they see a security guard or policeman with an openly carried firearm?
I have to disagree with you a bit on that. Most self defense/lethal force laws are conditional with words to the effect of, "the person had reason to believe that their life or the life of another person was in danger." You may be justified in shooting an intruder in your home walking toward you with a screwdriver in his hand, even if his intent was to steal the screw driver, and not confront or harm anybody. A number of people have been exonerated in self defense shootings after it was demonstrated the assailant had a toy gun, cell phone or other "non-weapon" merely because the person exercising their right to self-defense "believed" or "perceived" they were in far more danger than they actually were. The problem is how much common sense is exercised in enforcing and prosecuting conditional laws, as is the case here. The police should have explained to the complainant that the man was exercising a constitutional right, and as long as he wasn't brandishing the weapon or making overt threatening gestures, he was no more dangerous than any other person in the supermarket with a set of car keys.
Maybe a hint of the location would be nice. We don;t all live in your neighborhood.
No, this is the state of Washington; Where open carry is legal and concealed pistol permits are "Shall issue".
I'll be Sgt. Raquer does. Is he not a responsible person?
This officer may have a sparkling past, and may even be ‘suffering’ from a condition OR he don’t just stroll by very many “Dunkin Donut” shops.
I can hardly see my confidence level going up if I am in a position to have had to call 911 and this particular officer were to show up.
Granted he is on ‘barricade duty’ but if one were to throw some food in his direction he surely would be distracted and someone may steal the barricade.
Looking at how he is clutching his hands makes one think that drawing his weapon is the furthest thing from his mind.
Well, no it's not.
And if it were, he'd be in the slammer for quite some time, as ALL handguns are illegal, let alone open carry.
Your point is well taken. Nonetheless, a law, or the interpretation of a law by a policeman, that depends on the feelings or whims of another are generally letting individual rights be overturned by the masses. In your case, an individual right, the right to self defense, is upheld.
Was the store robbed while the dude was there? No? Then the store should be thankful by what he might have deterred.
Thanks for the info.
Fido969 (post #23) and mvpel (post #20)also makes very good points that dovetail with mine...this is an anti-brandishing law that has been inappropriately implied by a cop who is either ignorant of the law or has an agenda contrary to it.
Damn! That’s a lot of donuts.
I’m uncomfortable around muslims. Does that mean they will get ticketed?
That excerpt was on my mind as I wrote my response.
It hits the nail on the head.
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.