RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) 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.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.
[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 426; 1969 c 8 § 1.]
I read this as to mean, if you are carrying in a community or location that it is not a surprise to see someone with a gun on their hip then you are fine. If you carry in an area that people don't normally see a person with a gun on their hip you are in deep doo doo.
Then there is the ever present area of debate that a prosecutor and a court of law get to chew on. Is carrying openly in park on Granite Falls, "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"????
The answer is "who knows?"
Now, if someone had a gun in their waistband and it becomes exposed, then the officers have a right to do an investigation. It's hard to argue that, considering the circumstances, that a counter protester who "exhibited" a firearm like this. Not on purpose, but in the totality of the circumstances, might end up in some disturbance and if he/she gets into it at a rally with thousands of persons walking the street, that they could end up using their firearm.
How reasonable would it look in the paper the next day when the headline was, "Police Detain and Release Gunman Minutes Before Shooting at Downtown Rally."
Were they illegally detained? The rub is, was the time it took to conduct the investigation "reasonable." I guess that's open to interpretation as well.
As usual it will be up to the lawyers to argue that point. But my guess is that if a payout is made it will be for less than if a shooting had taken place. What I can say with complete conviction, and absolute surety, is that open carry is legal unless it is not.
That's how I read it too.
My understanding is that the guy wasn't open carrying or menacing, someone just noticed something like the bottom of the holster peeking out from under his jacket and reported it. I can sympathize with the position this puts the police in, but I tend to be pretty militant in my belief in the 2nd. I believe the officers should have assessed that these people were not a threat and let them remain if they were not. Maybe they got beligerant when confronted. Maybe they didn't cooperate when asked for their CCWs. We don't know yet. We have one side of the story and barely that. If they did, then I agree with what the officer(s) did. If Seattle Police policy under Nickels and Girlekowsky is to detain and intimidate all CCW permit carriers, then they need to be slapped hard on this one.
What training has the department given on open carry contacts and are they consistent with that training?
I'm not a lawyer, I am not qualified to give legal advice. To get legal advice, consult a lawyer.
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.
Your argument is similar to the argument that people could be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace for carrying openly if it scares someone else. If I remember correctly there were a couple cases where people were detained here in Ohio after our Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting open carry (with some exceptions) was unconstitutional.
However, I don't believe anyone was ever even charged with disturbing the peace for doing so. A legal and constitutionally protected act in itself cannot be construed as a cause for alarm. They would have to do something that could be reasonably construe as threatening others, or doing something that negligently placed others at risk.
Washington State Constitution Article I, Section 24
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Saying that merely possessing firearms for self defense while performing other legal and constitutionally protected acts is illegal would be blatantly unconstitutional based on their State constitution.
Legal possession of a firearm in a legal manner does not legally "warrant alarm".
I read this as to mean, if you are carrying in a community or location that it is not a surprise to see someone with a gun on their hip then you are fine. If you carry in an area that people don't normally see a person with a gun on their hip you are in deep doo doo.
Simple fear and misunderstanding of otherwise legal acts is not warranted or justified alarm.
Now, if someone had a gun in their waistband and it becomes exposed, then the officers have a right to do an investigation. It's hard to argue that, considering the circumstances, that a counter protester who "exhibited" a firearm like this.
Someone reported that one of these people had a firearm. I agree that it was reasonable for the Police to investigate the situation. However, since there appears to have been no evidence that the weapons were brandished or that any threats were made, the police had no authority to detain them.
Not on purpose, but in the totality of the circumstances, might end up in some disturbance and if he/she gets into it at a rally with thousands of persons walking the street, that they could end up using their firearm.
So you're saying that though their legal actions they might find themselves in a situation where they might need to defend themselves? Remember the beginning of Article 1 section 24, The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.
Were they illegally detained? The rub is, was the time it took to conduct the investigation "reasonable."
There doesn't appear to have been any evidence that they had done anything illegal. It was reasonable to question them, but there was no legal justification for detaining them. The police removed them and prevented them from exercising their first amendment rights without evidence of breaking any laws. Their only justification for doing so was directly in conflict with their state constitution.
This situation isn't ambiguous.