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.
This is not Canada, this is Vancouver WASHINGTON. This is the United States, think across the river from Portland, Oregon.
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.
No, this is the state of Washington; Where open carry is legal and concealed pistol permits are "Shall issue".
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.
Canada doesn’t have Albertsons or legal handguns.