Seattle PI, Open Carry blog from King Co. Sheriff...

[gogodawgs]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2009/10/14/is-washington-an-open-carry-state-regarding-guns/

Q: I have a concealed-weapons license and can carry a handgun on my person concealed. Can I carry the same firearm “open” and not have to worry about someone calling the police on me?
I’ve heard that Washington has a “open-carry” law that doesn’t require any license as long as the firearm is within full view on a person. Is this true?
If someone sees me carrying a firearm am I in possible trouble with the law?
And pertaining to concealment: If I conceal a firearm on my person but you can see the outline of the gun is this cause for concern or is it OK as long as it’s “concealed?”
A: Here’s information from the King County Sheriff’s Office:
Washington is an “open- carry” state. That means a person may openly carry a firearm (pistol, rifle or shotgun) in public without a concealed-pistol license.

 

[tombrewster421]

Should say "with or without a CPL."

 

[1245A Defender]

UhHuh!!!

This is a very nice and correct answer from the cop guys...
I cant say more!

 

[Sparky508]

mostly correct.:banghead:

While “open carry” is legal in public, private property is a different matter.

The notice may take two forms. First, if a property is clearly marked with very visible signs at all entrances that say “No Firearms Allowed,” then it is illegal to bring a firearm onto the property,

 

[mikeyb]

Just to balance out the "pro-gun" slant of the blog, the Times ran this:

Headline: Wash. shooting: 2nd adult child dies
2nd adult child dies
adult child

Getting "child" in the headline to spark unrighteous indignation? Lovely to see that yellow journalism creeping to the forefront once again. :banghead:

article: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020663890_apwafatherchildrenshot.html?prmid=obindomain

 

[oneeyeross]

Just to balance out the "pro-gun" slant of the blog, the Times ran this:

Headline: Wash. shooting: 2nd adult child dies
2nd adult child dies
adult child

Getting "child" in the headline to spark unrighteous indignation? Lovely to see that yellow journalism creeping to the forefront once again. :banghead:

article: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020663890_apwafatherchildrenshot.html?prmid=obindomain

In this particular case, it is correct. It was the assailant's children, so it was his "adult child." Not sure how else that could be phrased to make the point that the man shot his offspring, who were of adult age
.

 

[theaero]

Anyone have more info on State v Mitchell? According to his answer, it says that OC at night in an urban setting was sufficient to warrant reasonable suspicion that the crime of unlawful display of a firearm was being committed.

 

[amlevin]

Should say "with or without a CPL."

Picky, picky. Get a favorable answer from a Law Enforcement Official and it's still not good enough

Sounds like they are on board with Open Carry at KCSO.

 

[oneeyeross]

Anyone have more info on State v Mitchell? According to his answer, it says that OC at night in an urban setting was sufficient to warrant reasonable suspicion that the crime of unlawful display of a firearm was being committed.

State v. Mitchell, 80 Wn. App. 143, 906 P.2d 1013

Oddly enough, I can find lots of cases that reference this case, but can't find the case itself...hmmm....

 

[bmg50cal]

State v. Mitchell, 80 Wn. App. 143, 906 P.2d 1013Oddly enough, I can find lots of cases that reference this case, but can't find the case itself...hmmm....

Oddly enough, I found it in the first page of results of a search... hmmm....http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19951919906P2d1013_11893.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Oddly enough, I found it in the first page of results of a search... hmmm....http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19951919906P2d1013_11893.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

Interesting opinion, I don't see why the court would use RCW 9.41.270 as the basis for the opinion though, I mean the officer could've simply articulated he was stopping to request a CPL since the supect placed the gun in his waistband AFTER observing a police car.

That's also strange that they ruled

The officer did not give unlawful display of a weapon as his reason for effecting the stop. Indeed, the officer testified that he saw nothing that in and of itself would constitute a crime. However, the existence of a reasonable suspicion does not depend on the officer's subjective beliefs, but is determined based on an objective standard.10 Much like the test for probable cause, the facts within the officer's knowledge must provide a basis for a reasonable suspicion. Although the officer did not name the particular crime for which he could articulate a reasonable suspicion, his suspicion was based on the very factors which constitute unlawful display of a weapon. The officer's stop was lawful.

basically the officer admitted he didn't see a crime, but detained them at gun point on suspicion of a crime that the officer didn't expect to charge the individual with, and the court found an excuse for the officer....

Am I reading too much into this paragraph? becuase I don't see this as jibing with the state constitution, surely there has to be SCOWA rulings that overturn or conflict with this appelate ruling...

 

[Alpine]

One of the things I like about KCSO Sheriff John Urquhart is that he is very approachable, I called the number on his campaign website last fall and it was his personal cellphone. I asked him how he felt about OC and he said it was the state law and that he respected it and would ensure KCSO would honor it.

Looks like he meant it.

 

[oneeyeross]

Oddly enough, I found it in the first page of results of a search... hmmm....http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19951919906P2d1013_11893.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

Your Google fu is better than mine....I humbly accept your mastery...

 

[MAC702]

And pertaining to concealment: If I conceal a firearm on my person but you can see the outline of the gun is this cause for concern or is it OK as long as it’s “concealed?”

Even in our states where "printing" or accidental exposure is not illegal, I like to point out that it is not the same as "openly carrying" when it happens.

OC means you are making no attempt to hide it. No, that doesn't mean IWB without a covering shirt is not OC; it is. But there is an instinctive difference between an obviously openly carried firearm, and an obviously hidden firearm that gets seen. Those who choose to conceal should pay attention that they do so well. Please don't treat "printing" and accidental exposure as "no big deal."

This is my opinion. Everyone is welcome to their own.

 

[oneeyeross]

Even in our states where "printing" or accidental exposure is not illegal, I like to point out that it is not the same as "openly carrying" when it happens.

OC means you are making no attempt to hide it. No, that doesn't mean IWB without a covering shirt is not OC; it is. But there is an instinctive difference between an obviously openly carried firearm, and an obviously hidden firearm that gets seen. Those who choose to conceal should pay attention that they do so well. Please don't treat "printing" and accidental exposure as "no big deal."

This is my opinion. Everyone is welcome to their own.

As with many things in life, it depends a lot on Location, Location, Location. Here in Lewis County, I don't make an effort either way, and never have a problem. I don't know how that would go in King County, and I don't intend to find out. I make an effort to stay concealed up there, mostly for my peace of mind.

Don't know how it goes in NV....

 

[Jim675]

Even in our states where "printing" or accidental exposure is not illegal, I like to point out that it is not the same as "openly carrying" when it happens.

OC means you are making no attempt to hide it. No, that doesn't mean IWB without a covering shirt is not OC; it is. But there is an instinctive difference between an obviously openly carried firearm, and an obviously hidden firearm that gets seen. Those who choose to conceal should pay attention that they do so well. Please don't treat "printing" and accidental exposure as "no big deal."

This is my opinion. Everyone is welcome to their own.

Firstly, it seems to me exactly the same. An openly carried gun that is not noticed is effectively concealed to the person who doesn't notice it. A gun that is 10%, 42.6% or 100% covered and yet still detected is effectively open carried to the person who detected it. If I don't notice your gun, regardless of how you carry it, you receive none of the benefits of OC regarding my behavior. If I know you are armed, regardless of degree of concealment, I treat you as armed.

Secondly, I fail to see how anyone else's clothing and accessory choices are any business of any other person.

 

[bmg50cal]

Even in our states where "printing" or accidental exposure is not illegal, I like to point out that it is not the same as "openly carrying" when it happens.

OC means you are making no attempt to hide it. No, that doesn't mean IWB without a covering shirt is not OC; it is. But there is an instinctive difference between an obviously openly carried firearm, and an obviously hidden firearm that gets seen. Those who choose to conceal should pay attention that they do so well. Please don't treat "printing" and accidental exposure as "no big deal."

This is my opinion. Everyone is welcome to their own.

In WA, those with a CPL don't have to worry about printing or transitioning from concealed to open and back again. I don't worry about taking off my coat and anyone seeing my carry. If a business asks me to leave, then I leave, no harm no foul.

 

[BigDave]

Don't over think the idea of concealed carry, you place an item over your holstered firearm to hide it from view, it is concealed, having a CPL or fall into an exemption is all that is required.
If the concealed firearm becomes in plain view then there is no violation of law, it become openly carried.
The only time it becomes an issue is when the firearm is made visible to intimidate another.

 

[amlevin]

In WA, those with a CPL don't have to worry about printing or transitioning from concealed to open and back again.

As long as that "transition" is not done for the purposes of intimidation. If you were to do so intentionally while in a confrontation that would be considered a violation. Don't want uncover "old West gunfighter style". It might read in the Police report something like "committed an open act of aggression with the intent to intimidate~~~~~~".

 

[MAC702]

I think my point may have been missed, so, yes, I should clarify that I do not want to imply that printing or any kind of exposure is illegal.