Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Can someone tell me where "trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" appears in the RCW?
That was my thought as well.
Can someone tell me where "trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" appears in the RCW?
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.
Doesn't. He would have to be charged with 2 different crimes: trespass and unlawful display.Can someone tell me where "trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm" appears in the RCW?
Display of a rifle is a tricky beast. In State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 121 (1994), Spencer was convicted for carrying a rifle (AK-47) in “a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.”So who all did not catch that he was OCing a RIFLE? While I understand the isn't much legal difference between OC with a handgun and a rifle, carrying a loaded (or unloaded) AR15 slung at low ready in Vancouver is going to start all kinds of trouble.
I agree, provided only that he had the weapon "at ready." Otherwise, it's a bit too close to call without knowing all the facts.Carrying a rifle in public versus in a rally (where public may well expect to see them being carried) may cause alarm and where things can go afoul, in this case it did.
Combining the mall and school shootings where a single or a few people have killed and harmed several people and created a fear into today's society.
When it comes to a private business banning firearms in their business or property is just as everyone in here can restrict access to their homes with someone walking up their walkway with a rifle slung over their shoulders.
One can tell someone to leave their property with any interaction more then telling them to leave, you don't then it is trespass.
While this youngman had good intentions but has done more harm to those who carry a pistol or revolver openly by carrying a rifle and may well meet the restrictions in [RCW 9.41.270(1)].
Otherwise, it's a bit too close to call without knowing all the facts.
But that's not how we do it at OCDO-WA. Come on, this isn't your first rodeo.
At OCDO-WA, we gather only one side of the story, dismiss out-of-hand all attempt to tell the other side, and from there we proceed![/COLOR]
Carrying a rifle in public versus in a rally (where public may well expect to see them being carried) may cause alarm and where things can go afoul, in this case it did.
Combining the mall and school shootings where a single or a few people have killed and harmed several people and created a fear into today's society.
When it comes to a private business banning firearms in their business or property is just as everyone in here can restrict access to their homes with someone walking up their walkway with a rifle slung over their shoulders.
One can tell someone to leave their property with any interaction more then telling them to leave, you don't then it is trespass.
While this youngman had good intentions but has done more harm to those who carry a pistol or revolver openly by carrying a rifle and may well meet the restrictions in;
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.
as viewed by a jury of your peers, remember not everyone want the freedom of rights we seek.
Doesn't. He would have to be charged with 2 different crimes: trespass and unlawful display.
Display of a rifle is a tricky beast. In State v. Spencer, 75 Wn. App. 118, 121 (1994), Spencer was convicted for carrying a rifle (AK-47) in “a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.”
I agree, provided only that he had the weapon "at ready." Otherwise, it's a bit too close to call without knowing all the facts.
Thus the very reason I posted, RCW 9.41.270 concerning what warrants alarm for the safety of other person is subjective to whoever you talk with it seems to be a varying part of the law.
We can talk to our family and friends and end up with different variations of what justifies fear which solely depends upon their knowledge, background and/or experience. This can and does sway the hard line many want to hold to on what justifies fear and what does not.
Personally I would take notice of someone carrying a rifle around a market area while others would be scared and of course those who wish to restrict possession and those maybe the ones deciding your faith if the need so arises.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?
I would prefer your view on this and there is no argument there but when a jury is asked to view all circumstances of a case that would involve this topic, is it not left up to them to decide?
No doubt it would be over turned later but still plays an active part of the process.
Take Josh's bout with open carry conviction from a couple years ago in front of a jury which the prosecution insisted (Josh's request was for a Judge), while he was legal to be armed and had a legal right to be where he was, through the course of prosecution he was found guilty and his appeal failed which is unknown exactly why (possibly was not filed in time), still today I do not know if the Judge has ever wrote the opinion, last I checked was around a year ago.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?
With all due respect, Rob, that is precisely a subjective test. We don't actually have that model "reasonable person" that we can re-run the scenario with and observe how they react; it's a useful conceptual fiction that we use to try to get our minds into the proper frame, but ultimately we're all just conjecturing on the answer and if that's not subjective I don't know what would be.
Well, while it appears to be subjective, Spencer tells us...
So who all did not catch that he was OCing a RIFLE? While I understand the isn't much legal difference between OC with a handgun and a rifle, carrying a loaded (or unloaded) AR15 slung at low ready in Vancouver is going to start all kinds of trouble.
I may have missed it... where is it stated he was carrying at low ready?
According to the court docket, he was charged with criminal trespass 2 and unlawful display.Doesn't. He would have to be charged with 2 different crimes: trespass and unlawful display.
According to the court docket, he was charged with criminal trespass 2 and unlawful display.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that what "warrants alarm" is subjective. If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. As I observed in another thread, and as the Spencer court held, what "warrants alarm" is an objective test in that the analysis implicates the "reasonable person" standard. I.e., how would "a person of ordinary care and prudence" react?