| Author | Post |
|---|
LJJ
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26th, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
scarlett1125 wrote: As someone who works in education, I am concerned about recent shootings on school property. However, I do not want my classroom to be a place where my students are afraid or feel uncomfortable, so at work, I CC. Likewise, I would rather be able to have a conversation with my daughter's teacher about my daughter, rather than about my handgun, so even though I am outside to pick Franki up, I still CC there, too.
Might have missed it, but CC IN the building is not allowed for a simple CPL holder. CC is allowed on the school grounds, and then following that states:
(5) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.
For referance, the whole section with parts (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) are below.
Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) Any student or employee of a private military academy when on the property of the academy;
(b) Any person engaged in military, law enforcement, or school district security activities;
(c) Any person who is involved in a convention, showing, demonstration, lecture, or firearms safety course authorized by school authorities in which the firearms of collectors or instructors are handled or displayed;
(d) Any person while the person is participating in a firearms or air gun competition approved by the school or school district;
(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;
(f) Any nonstudent at least eighteen years of age legally in possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon that is secured within an attended vehicle or concealed from view within a locked unattended vehicle while conducting legitimate business at the school;
(g) Any nonstudent at least eighteen years of age who is in lawful possession of an unloaded firearm, secured in a vehicle while conducting legitimate business at the school; or
(h) Any law enforcement officer of the federal, state, or local government agency.
(4) Subsections (1)(c) and (d) of this section do not apply to any person who possesses nun-chu-ka sticks, throwing stars, or other dangerous weapons to be used in martial arts classes authorized to be conducted on the school premises.
(5) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.
|
John Hardin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
Hey SV, you should add links to download the pamphlets. One stop shopping, y'know.
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 08:58 pm |
|
I always felt it easier to just go to http://nwcdl.org at download everything. Besides that I have, with his a Lonnie's consent, duplicated the FAQ's. One day people will realize htere is more to nwcdl then just a forum.
|
bugly
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20th, 2009 03:02 am |
|
Here's a question I don't think I've ever seen here, but I may have missed:
If a building is listed as a "no firearms" zone, such as a courthouse or Federal building, do they have to provide lawful carriers a place to lock their weapons (don't even say "in your car", they get broken into) when conducting lawful business in their building?
I have avoided many times going to some courthouses to pick up paperwork to fill out for personal reasons (like my divorce papers, nothing criminal) and I had thought about asking them if there were any provisions, but most security guards I have seen are merely doing a job and don't really know what the laws are.
Has anyone seen anything about this?
BTW I do not have anything against security guards or airline security people, but, damn, if someone is going to strip me down to look for weapons, they should at least buy me a drink before or after. WTF?
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20th, 2009 10:46 am |
|
bugly wrote: Here's a question I don't think I've ever seen here, but I may have missed:
If a building is listed as a "no firearms" zone, such as a courthouse or Federal building, do they have to provide lawful carriers a place to lock their weapons ...
My understanding is that of the restricted carry locations defined in 9.41.300, only the courts (county, municipal) are required to provide a lock box or someone to safeguard your weapon. Federal courts are another matter. All federal property falls under the USC and CFR, not state law; all weapons are prohibited with no requirement to provide storage or delineation between restricted areas and public areas. However, there are various courts (such as Tacoma district per this thread) that make up their rules as they go.
Along those lines, I have another question. If a court is multi-purpose, such as a muni court by day and council chambers by night - does the RCW still apply? I suspect it does as there is no provision defining such exception.
|
bugly
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20th, 2009 05:19 pm |
|
| It would be my understanding that if a building is used in a "mulipurpose" way, the purpose for which you would be disallowed to carry into the building would keep you from carrying inside a building due to the office not being removed when not used. If they were to move all their materials out when not working there, it would free that building up. Kinda like your house is still your house when you're not home. (unless you have a cat...)
|
amzbrady
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 1st, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
I can not find anything that definitivly states that you can "Open Carry"in the state of Washington. I have have however read and pasted RCW 9.41.270 that clearly states
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
=======================================================
Can anyone send me an email that clearly defines the fact that this is an "Open Carry" state? I have a CWP, I would like to be able to carry my 9mm in the open as it is hard to conceal since I am short and fat. I really dont want to have to carry a 380 or move to the next size up fat pants. I would love to see us to be able to carry like NH, and Virginia. More exposed guns = less crime. If your not doing anything wrong you shouldnt have anything to hide. Every state should be open carry and not need any concealed weapons permits.
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 1st, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
There is nothing that details the legalities of OC but you can read the court rulings and training bulletins regarding open carry.
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads
|
amzbrady
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 1st, 2009 11:18 pm |
|
| So by the way it reads, its all at the discretion of the police. I am still surprised, in all the years I've lived in WA, that I have never seen someone "Open carry" in this state.
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 12:06 am |
|
amzbrady wrote: (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.
amzbrady, you have highlighted sections without reading the section in its entirety... and that's the problem we're having with many LEO's. They don't read it in its entirety and read it as you have... which is wrong.
If you keep reading past your last highlight where it says "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that"..."warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." You will see that the four parts above MUST be met along with warranting alarm for the safety of other persons for the law to be applied. Our appellate courts have an unpublished opinion in State v Casad that states mere open carry of a firearm does NOT warrant alarm for the safety of other persons.
|
amzbrady
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 01:53 am |
|
osted: Sunday March 1st, 2009 16:06
amzbrady wrote: (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.
OK, the reason I took sections out of context, is because thats all that is needed for you to lose you cpl. It is unlawful to exhibit or display any firearm that is capable of producing bodily harm, that warrants alarm. If you do not try to conceal your weapon and someone sees it and feels threatened they can call the police, make a complaint and I bet you will be ticketed if you are not attempting to conceal it. Make a point and prove the Open carry in Wa state is applicable by strapping on a six gun and walk around and see what happens. All of the gun shop owners I have spoke to say the same thing. It is an officers discretion on whether you are breaking the law or not by just displaying your weapon, but its not worth taking a chance on losing you cpl over. We should be able to carry unconcealed without a license in this state but its not recommended to try. As in most RCW's not all of the text must be met as worded, just one of the them.Last edited on Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 02:00 am by amzbrady
|
M1Gunr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 03:28 am |
|
I wanna play this game, check out my edits.......
amzbrady wrote: Posted: Sunday March 1st, 2009 16:06
amzbrady wrote: (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.
|
amzbrady
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 03:51 am |
|
The comma's are there to seperate conditions. If all condition were required to be met there would be "and" between them.
In fact if you really want to convince me, I invite you to prove your claim to the legal Open Carry law in Washington by having a frien video tape you walking the streets of Seattle with a holstered weapon in plain view. In fact what would really be convincing more than anything go to some stores, and places with the masses. Then for a true test make your way into Pierce county, then Thurston County, the to our wonderful little town in Ocean Shores, here in Grays Harbor County. Make sure there is something going on at the convention center here. Then Post it on YouTube for us all to see. If you dont have any problems then at that time I will concede you are indeed the almighty gun guru, and apologize for ever doubting your legal knowledge.
Oh yea, I almost forgot, "I triple dog dare ya..."
Last edited on Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 04:03 am by amzbrady
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 04:02 am |
|
amzbrady wrote: The comma's are there to seperate conditions. If all condition were required to be met there would be "and" between them.
Not sure where you get this information, but I don't believe your interpretation to be correct.
Before I jump into this, do me the favor of reading two opinions that can be found on Northwest Citizen's Defense League. I'm not sure, but I think that you do need to register to access the downloads.
State v. Spencer
State vs. Casad
[edit] Never mind, your last edit has convinced me of my suspicions. Troll away.
Last edited on Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 04:04 am by Gene Beasley
|
amzbrady
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 04:50 am |
|
You dont need to be logged on to download, just to reply. both of these cases were concerning rifles, not pistols in holsters. Spencer lost, and unbelievably casado or whatever his name is won while being a felon with drugs. how do you like that. I need to see a definite case involving a pistol in holster.
The thing that they get you on is "or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." All they need is someone to feel threatened and call the police. Thats where they get ya.
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 06:05 am |
|
amzbrady wrote:
osted: Sunday March 1st, 2009 16:06
amzbrady wrote: (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.
amzbrady, you have highlighted sections without reading the section in its entirety... and that's the problem we're having with many LEO's. They don't read it in its entirety and read it as you have... which is wrong.
If you keep reading past your last highlight where it says "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that"..."warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." You will see that the four parts above MUST be met along with warranting alarm for the safety of other persons for the law to be applied. Our appellate courts have an unpublished opinion in State v Casad that states mere open carry of a firearm does NOT warrant alarm for the safety of other persons.
OK, the reason I took sections out of context, is because thats all that is needed for you to lose you cpl. It is unlawful to exhibit or display any firearm that is capable of producing bodily harm, that warrants alarm. If you do not try to conceal your weapon and someone sees it and feels threatened they can call the police, make a complaint and I bet you will be ticketed if you are not attempting to conceal it. Make a point and prove the Open carry in Wa state is applicable by strapping on a six gun and walk around and see what happens. All of the gun shop owners I have spoke to say the same thing. It is an officers discretion on whether you are breaking the law or not by just displaying your weapon, but its not worth taking a chance on losing you cpl over. We should be able to carry unconcealed without a license in this state but its not recommended to try.
Wow... you're none-too-bright, huh?
Maybe you should go ahead and read around the forum a bit... maybe find out that many, many folk go about their daily lives while Open Carrying (myself included) and have little to no issue with it, even with law enforcement officers.
Since you don't seem to want to listen to reason at all, I'm done with you. By the way, the rhetoric you're using screams "HEY, I'M AN ANTI-GUN FANATIC!!!" Go away.
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 06:06 am |
|
amzbrady wrote: The comma's are there to seperate conditions. If all condition were required to be met there would be "and" between them.
Oh, and by the way, before I call it quits, there is an "And" between those conditions.
Again, learn to read you troll.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 711 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 3rd, 2009 02:47 pm |
|
amzbrady wrote: The comma's are there to seperate conditions. If all condition were required to be met there would be "and" between them.
In fact if you really want to convince me, I invite you to prove your claim to the legal Open Carry law in Washington by having a frien video tape you walking the streets of Seattle with a holstered weapon in plain view. In fact what would really be convincing more than anything go to some stores, and places with the masses. Then for a true test make your way into Pierce county, then Thurston County, the to our wonderful little town in Ocean Shores, here in Grays Harbor County. Make sure there is something going on at the convention center here. Then Post it on YouTube for us all to see. If you dont have any problems then at that time I will concede you are indeed the almighty gun guru, and apologize for ever doubting your legal knowledge.
Oh yea, I almost forgot, "I triple dog dare ya..."
I'll meet your challenge (as best I can from down here) and do you one better!
See my birthday account HERE .
And HERE you will find video documentation of my attempt to check my sidearm at the Clark County COURTHOUSE as required by, and in full compliance with state law ( RCW 9.41.300 ).
Note that while the officers violated state law by placing requirements on doing so that were "inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed(ed) the requirements of state law"( RCW 9.41.290 ) and even apparently felt 'threatened' enough to unholster a sidearm, I was NOT arrest for violating RCW 9.41.270, nor was my CPL revoked.
I'm sure if it was up to the discretion of Dick Butler he would have 'cuffed and stuffed' me in a heartbeat.....if only he were able.
Now then...what say ye to THAT, sir?
Last edited on Tue Mar 3rd, 2009 02:50 pm by Phssthpok
|
amzbrady
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 03:35 am |
|
| The point I'm trying to make is... I feel everystate should be Open Carry like virginia, and new hampshire. There a few people on this sire saying WA is open carry but I can not find anything, as far as Pictures, and video, showing people in the public with visable pistols in holsters at thier side. Even your video at CC Courthouse, didnt show your sidearm, "unless I missed it". I would love to jump on the bandwagon and support Open carry in WA. I would rather Open Carry than have to have a cpl. I just dont wanna be the minority. If you know of any other video out there showing some convincing footage, please forward the links. I am firm on seeing is believing.
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 04:34 am |
|
You want seeing is believing? Come to a lunch/dinner meetup.
Why the hell should we have to go out and make a video to ease your fears?
|
Current time is 04:54 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
