Concealed legality details

[Kanewpadle]

Revised Code of Washington is where you need to look.
RCW 9.41.270: Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm—Unlawful carrying or handling—Penalty—Exceptions.

By definition of this section, you “should” be okay. If you run across a snowflake, who knows? Personally I don’t worry about it and I don’t care if someone has a hissy fit. I have pocket carried for years without a problem. And the snowflakes around here wouldn’t know any better anyway. If someone is aware that your gun prints, he or she is probably a gun person.

Carry legally and don’t worry about it.

 

[Autonomous]

If a story sounds way too weird to be true, it’s probably not. There’s always more to the story . . .

60 something year old guy pulled over by cops when he rode into the Best Western we were staying at. They cover him and make him wait on the bicycle for backup. Several cops then, without warning, tackle him off the bike.
I know the guy and know the witnesses.

As far as more to the story... Take your accusation and put it somewhere.

P.S. The treacherous are always suspicious.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Was he drunk? Did he commit a traffic violation? Did he fail to stop when the overheads got lit? Did he take off running when he stopped? Had there been a crime committed by a person on a bicycle nearby? You apparently weren’t there. I’m not accusing anyone of anything, but I, and you, weren’t there, so we don’t know the whole story. What I do know is that cops are too busy to screw with people lawfully carrying a firearm without a valid reason. Your buddy did something else. If he didn’t, I’m assuming he settled the lawsuit prior to trial . . .

60 something year old guy pulled over by cops when he rode into the Best Western we were staying at. They cover him and make him wait on the bicycle for backup. Several cops then, without warning, tackle him off the bike.
I know the guy and know the witnesses.

As far as more to the story... Take your accusation and put it somewhere.

P.S. The treacherous are always suspicious.

 

[Heinz]

Smoke, the basic principals of the English common law apply across most states. Therefore it is a valid observation to state "brandishing is an intentional act and in my state that requires you intend to branish"

However I did not bother to look up the Idaho code to see if they had some unusual definition of "brandishing or bizarre case law on deep concealment.
I thought maybe the OP could show some initiative.

I practiced criminal law for 10 years in Ohio. But the law in Ohio has changed. Any good lawyer will include a caution that your jurisdiction may vary, but that does not make an explanation of the general state of the law worthless. Except to you

 

[filipows]

Idaho statute, brandishing

I'm not a lawyer but the statute says

18-3303. EXHIBITION OR USE OF DEADLY WEAPON. Every person who, not in necessary self-defense, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner, or who, in any manner, unlawfully uses the same, in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.





.In recently attending a CWL class in Idaho, the instructor suggested that when carrying in pocket, IWB, shoulder, or other and it becomes visible accidently, or an outer garment "prints" the weapon, I could be charged with BRANDISHING in Washington or Idaho State. Is this true? That sounds like denial of right to me. What do the lawyers say?

 

[steelslaver]

Search Idaho 18-3302 and read the actual laws on FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS

While you could be possibly be charged with brandishing, you could also possibly be charged with reckless driving for being 6" from the center or fog line. But, how likely that is to occur and the chances of conviction or for that mater much of a legal battle would be slim. Most cops don't want to waste time making mountains out of mole hills,especially imaginary mole hills. Now if a person made some exaggerated claims as to what you did your problems may be larger.

Having been in Idaho a bit, most of the people are not apt to be very excitable about guns. I am am not sure about the Boise area though. It may well have more gun paranoia than the rest of the state.

Montana code


45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon -- display. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.

(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

 

[Muss Muggins]

P.S. The treacherous are always suspicious.

Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify . . .

 

[Autonomous]

Was he drunk? Did he commit a traffic violation? Did he fail to stop when the overheads got lit? Did he take off running when he stopped? Had there been a crime committed by a person on a bicycle nearby? You apparently weren’t there. I’m not accusing anyone of anything, but I, and you, weren’t there, so we don’t know the whole story. What I do know is that cops are too busy to screw with people lawfully carrying a firearm without a valid reason. Your buddy did something else. If he didn’t, I’m assuming he settled the lawsuit prior to trial . . .

Yes, you are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate it.
If you bother to read and comprehend my first post about the situation it may help.
Or maybe I need to type slower?
Try this...
From my first post about the situation. "A guy I know was violently assaulted by cops when his shirt blew up his back, briefly exposing his weapon, when riding a bicycle."

The police told him the gun was seen as he was riding the bike when his shirt blew around. They did not tell him if it was called in or if it was their observation.

The guy on the bike and both witnesses are co-workers of mine.
The stop happened just outside the break room, hence the witnesses.

You are the one making stuff up with the drunk and traffic violation implications and lawsuit fantasy. Your assertion that cops are too busy to "screw with people lawfully carrying" is a lie. Way too many corroborated stories of that happening.

 

[BC38]

Since open carry appears to be legal without a permit in both Idaho and Washington state (admitted five minute interweb search), I call that which makes the grass green and fragrant . . .

Open carry IS legal both here in Washington and in neighboring Idaho.

So someone seeing your concealed carry is NOT a violation of the law. You've got no obligation to conceal your carry in the first place.

If some snowflake called it in and claimed you brandished because they saw it, unless they went even further and filed a false report by lying to say you un-holstered it or otherwise displayed it in a threatening manner, or used it to intimidate, then the police dispatcher would tell them exactly that - that no law was broken.

Additionally Idaho is a constitutional carry state so you don't even need any kind of permit or license to carry concealed either.

I'd say this "instructor" needs to brush up on the law.

 

[moralem]

I Have To Ask This Question

If you don't know what the law is in the state where the OP is at what possible good does it do to comment on the law where you're at? which has zero bearing on the question being asked.

Entertainment value?

 

[Telecaster]

Open carry IS legal both here in Washington and in neighboring Idaho.

Additionally Idaho is a constitutional carry state so you don't even need any kind of permit or license to carry concealed either.

I'd say this "instructor" needs to brush up on the law.

Makes me wonder how they have CWL classes or licenses.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Duly noted . . .

Yes, you are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate it.
If you bother to read and comprehend my first post about the situation it may help.
Or maybe I need to type slower?
Try this...
From my first post about the situation. "A guy I know was violently assaulted by cops when his shirt blew up his back, briefly exposing his weapon, when riding a bicycle."

The police told him the gun was seen as he was riding the bike when his shirt blew around. They did not tell him if it was called in or if it was their observation.

The guy on the bike and both witnesses are co-workers of mine.
The stop happened just outside the break room, hence the witnesses.

You are the one making stuff up with the drunk and traffic violation implications and lawsuit fantasy. Your assertion that cops are too busy to "screw with people lawfully carrying" is a lie. Way too many corroborated stories of that happening.

 

[BC38]

I Have To Ask This Question

If you don't know what the law is in the state where the OP is at what possible good does it do to comment on the law where you're at? which has zero bearing on the question being asked.

Comparison? Contrast? General discussion?

 

[serger]

Yes, you are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate it.
If you bother to read and comprehend my first post about the situation it may help.
Or maybe I need to type slower?
Try this...
From my first post about the situation. "A guy I know was violently assaulted by cops when his shirt blew up his back, briefly exposing his weapon, when riding a bicycle."

The police told him the gun was seen as he was riding the bike when his shirt blew around. They did not tell him if it was called in or if it was their observation.

The guy on the bike and both witnesses are co-workers of mine.
The stop happened just outside the break room, hence the witnesses.

You are the one making stuff up with the drunk and traffic violation implications and lawsuit fantasy. Your assertion that cops are too busy to "screw with people lawfully carrying" is a lie. Way too many corroborated stories of that happening.

And "a guy I know", happened to live in Idaho or Washington State?

 

[Doug M.]

There is no law about "brandishing" in WA. There are narrow circumstances in which one could be charged, but one would have to be a complete dullard. I have done a critique of the case law at work. (I have been a lawyer since 1987 and admitted in WA in 1993.) I am not at all a fan of open carry under most conditions, but an accidental flash is not a crime.

I did have to go to a call of such from a crybaby some years ago. I knew he would be a crybaby as soon as I saw the area code - it was not 509. He was not happy when we told him that there was no basis for LE action and would be doing nothing.

 

[Lightfoot4]

When did this happen? NC is an open carry without a permit state and has been for years.

Now…there are prohibited areas like paid events and parades but just riding your bike isn’t one of them.

I suspect your friend is greatly exaggerating or more likely, there is more to the story, such as carrying a handgun under the influence of alcohol.

1) It happened a few years ago, when South Carolina didn't have open carry (which is a more recent change).
2) Myrtle Beach is in SOUTH Carolina, not North Carolina.
3) Nothing exaggerated about it at all. It happened just like I explained it. Sometimes you get one of those cops.

 

[Smoke]

Smoke, the basic principals of the English common law apply across most states. Therefore it is a valid observation to state "brandishing is an intentional act and in my state that requires you intend to branish"

However I did not bother to look up the Idaho code to see if they had some unusual definition of "brandishing or bizarre case law on deep concealment.
I thought maybe the OP could show some initiative.

I practiced criminal law for 10 years in Ohio. But the law in Ohio has changed. Any good lawyer will include a caution that your jurisdiction may vary, but that does not make an explanation of the general state of the law worthless. Except to you

The guilty flee where none pursue?

I wasn't talking about your post. Your post was about what constitutes brandishing. it's not the same thing

 

[2wheels]

WA RCW 9.41.270

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.

I’m not a lawyer, but I highly doubt you would be arrested if you accidentally print a concealed firearm in Washington. Maybe if you’re packing an 8” 44mag under a tight tee shirt and acting aggressively, you might.

 

[2wheels]

WA RCW 9.41.270

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.

I’m not a lawyer, but I highly doubt you would be arrested if you accidentally print a concealed firearm in Washington. Maybe if you’re packing an 8” 44mag under a tight tee shirt and acting aggressively, you might.

 

[BC38]

Makes me wonder how they have CWL classes or licenses.

2 reasons as I understand it.

1) Idaho Constitutional Carry passed only a year and a half or so ago - prior to that they required a CCW Permit and the permitting system hasn't been discontinued - even though you don't actually have to have one anymore

2) Reciprocity. There are a LOT of states that have honored the Idaho permit for a long time, and still do. So if you are an Idaho resident and want to carry in those states, having the Idaho permit allows you to do so

I'm sure another unstated reason is revenue. I'd think that issuing the permit costs less than what the state charges for it.

One good reason to get it is that having it also allows you to walk out of the LGS with your purchase same day, instead of waiting for a BGC to clear.