This dawg don't hunt...
With an attorney, this will be thrown out in court, and rightly so...IMHO
This is a discussion on Police ticket man who wore gun in store (WA) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Police ticket man who wore gun in store - Washington - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum Police ticket man who wore ...
Police ticket man who wore gun in store - Washington - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion ForumPolice ticket man who wore gun in store | The Columbian
Police ticket man who wore gun in store
Visible handgun alarmed someone, police say
By John Branton
Columbian staff writer
Friday, March 19, 2010
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 RCW 9.41.270: Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm ? Unlawful carrying or handling ? Penalty ? Exceptions.
John Branton: 360-735-4513 or email@example.com.Excerpt from the training for the King County Sheriff’s Office
TITLE OF TRAINING:
Open Carry of Firearm in Washington
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.
DETAILED 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.
Email sent to Vancouver, WA Police Department should be addressed to:
firstname.lastname@example.org and Greg.Raquer@ci.vancouver.wa.us
This dawg don't hunt...
With an attorney, this will be thrown out in court, and rightly so...IMHO
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
I hate when laws get twisted and misinterpreted. Kind of like Florida's "3-Step rule"
"Engage your brain before you engage your weapon" - James "Mad Dawg" Mattis
I'm ashamed to admit that I live just across a river from this city. Which is really no more than a suburb of Portland, Oregon. As the first poster pointed out. Several agencies through-out Washington State have posted training bulletins that state the mere act of open carry does not constitute an infraction of the law. Apparently Vancouver didn't get the memo. But then again. Vancouver PD have more far more serious issues. But I digress.
You wanna hear absurd. A few cities in Oregon have bans on the Open Carry of firearms. (Luckily those possessing CHL's are exempt from the stupidity) Those with out CHL's can usually get around that by carrying the weapon unloaded (A LA California) However, In Portland, they have taken it a step further and you in addition to not being able to openly carry a loaded firearm, you are prohibited from carrying a loaded magazine. So you have to have the gun and the magazine and the ammo separate on your persons. Again, Luckily those who have a valid CHL are exempt from all these Shenanigazations.
Last edited by RRizzo; March 20th, 2010 at 07:34 AM. Reason: It's 4:34 in the morning and I can't spell.
The sad part is the news article. The damage is done. Unless this reporter will retract or write a "other side of the story" article, this is another lost in the PR battle. What's being done to correct the author/newspaper?
Hopefully the department issues an apology to the man, and that makes it to the papers... if infact there were no aggrivating factors.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.
It's not illegal, but ... the Police seem to be mis-using the laws and making them up as they go along.
I sent an email to both addresses and included a note to update department training
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.
Funny that your tax-paying peer is an imminent threat, but your authoritarian police force's display of firearms is calming. Those folk have some weird trust issues.
Crime should be outlawed.
I wonder if the crime in that area had been increasing causing him to OC..?
Pretty much my take on it, as well. Even without the excerpt from the county sheriff's training materials indicating the proper reading of the statute, it should NOT be possible for such a mistaken reading to hold.This dawg don't huntIt sure does seem that way, more and more, doesn't it. It's as if the mere fact someone's bummed about a situation is sufficient cause to jump all over a person in order to quell the disturbance ... irrespective of whether the action in question (aka, the claimed "disturbance") is perfectly legal and benign. Like the carry of defensive firearms. They are NOT a threat. And neither are upstanding citizens. The mere fact someone's got a problem with that is NOT sufficient to lay claim there is criminality here.It's not illegal, but ... the Police seem to be mis-using the laws and making them up as they go along.
RCW 91.41.270 requires that the action either: Manifests an intent to intimidate, or warrants alarm for the safety of others.
The way the criminalization claim by the officers went, the mere fact someone felt alarmed and raised an alarm does, in and of itself, by definition, means that the claimed action "warrants" (justifies) a state of alarm over fear for the safety of others.
That's a mighty long leap. All the situation proves is that statutes may be twisted to claim criminality against anyone.
As for the "manifest intent" portion of RCW 9.41.270(1), IMO:
- Any such statute that relies upon the actions of the actor must actually have such action by the actor in order for it to apply.
- Since the person carrying the firearm was simply going about his own business and was not, in fact, engaging in any threatening, intimidating or menacing behavior other than the mere carrying of the defensive firearm, then this aspect of the statute cannot apply.
- Carrying of a firearm is legal in WA. Open carrying of a firearm is legal in WA. Carrying one in a standard manner that is partially visible to another is also legal. Heck, even the training materials for the county sheriff's department in question trained exactly the opposite of the officer's claim of criminality.
As for the "warrants alarm" portion of RCW 9.41.270(1), IMO:
- Whether a situation "warrants" legitimate fear or alarm is debatable.
- A claim can be made by anyone. However, the mere fact someone claims that alarm for the fear of harm to others doesn't, by itself, mean that alarm was warranted. There must be JUSTIFICATION for such alarm to be warranted.
- With someone minding his or her own simple business, going about normal behaviors much like anyone else in the place at the same time doing the same activity, it cannot hardly be claimed that fear for the safety of others is justified.
- By definition, an upstanding person going about normal, upstanding acts of personal business does not, in and of itself, constitute engaging in any activity that would legitimately cause fear of harm of others to exist in anyone.
- Nobody was in fact at risk of harm. The person carrying the defensive, life-saving tool was NOT engaging in any behavior other than walking through the store as a normal shopper. The tool happened to be a firearm, yes, but defensive firearms are worn in much the same way socks are. They're worn in a benign manner, as part of the normal dressing for the day. They are NOT worn as a sign or statement being made to others. They are NOT worn to cause harm to others, fear of harm to others, nor to cause people to legitimately feel harm to others is imminent by the person's actions.
Thanks to swatspyder for including a specific excerpt from the actual King County Sheriff's office training materials related to the proper and appropriate reading of RCW 9.41.270.Even without this entry in the training materials, it would seem painfully obvious that such a thing is true. Fear by someone must be justified, in order for that fear to pass any standard of reasonableness. No reasonable person should be fearful of what an upstanding person's article of daily wear might cause to happen. Guns don't "go off" or magically jump out of their holsters to attack people. And upstanding people don't do that themselves. Thus, it's all but required for the statute in question to demand actual intimidating action exist before there is any criminality. The mere fact it's a gun isn't (shouldn't be) sufficient.In order to support an enforcement action under this law ... the articulation [by the officer] must include something beyond mere, open possession.
Case closed, essentially, if the training materials specifically show the officers disregarded the training and instead chose to claim criminality anyway. The mere claim of fear for the safety of others is insufficient, and that is (nicely) stated in the training.
Nice word...I like it!
Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
So did they issue the ticket and then allow him to continue his 'illegal' activity or did he have to cover or disarm?
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!