"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."
I don't understand what you are disputing. I am pretty sure that's what everyone here understands "warrants alarm" to mean. Perhaps you would prefer if we wrote it "warrants alarm (...)"?
When we say "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion", we are using legal terms that are defined by a body of case law and statues. The same is true for "warrants alarm" -- and we are invoking the full concept of it when using the term. I don't see what's wrong with that.
A holstered weapon does not qualify. You have to do more than just carry a weapon. So drop the warrants alarm stuff. Even the courts don't just look at the two words alone.
What you're saying is false. Nothing in the statute exempts you from being so charged merely because your weapon is holstered. If you intimidate other people, act aggressive, and touch your gun, you can be charged under this statue even if the weapon is holstered.
That's exactly why I used the phrase "warrants alarm"
instead of saying "you can carry your weapon in your holster". To repeat what I said in my original post:
As long as it is carried in a way that does not "warrant alarm", and is otherwise lawful, we should be OK to carry on Spokane Transit.
I believe this is a precise and correct way of describing in what manner a person may carry on Spokane Transit. It also alludes, to a person who is familiar with case law, that the exact prohibited conduct is not known in advance -- and whether your carrying "warrants alarm" is decided by a court. Just like "probable cause" is decided by a court.
If you get onto the bus wearing a skii mask, having a holstered gun, I am sure you would be arrested because your manner of carrying "warrants alarm (...)".
In conclusion, I don't see what you're objecting to.
