WA state reciprocity

486 Views 3 Replies 3 Participants Last post by Malum Prohibitum, Jun 21, 2017

Aberk

Discussion Starter · Jun 21, 2017

So I'm headed to WA very soon and my wife asked if I was taking my gun. I honestly hadn't thought about it. It's been so long since I flown for non-business reasons, the idea never dawned on me.

I started to look at reciprocity and WA states the following as a reason fr not allowing reciprocity.

No mandatory mental health background check. Allows persons under 21-yrs-old to have license.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/concealed-weapon-reciprocity

Any idea where they got the "under 21 idea". Is it the military exemption?

Save

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

Craftsman

· #2 · Jun 21, 2017

I wrote the Attorney General of Washington a few years back about reciprocity. I got some BOS about not issuing private opinions, despite reciprocity determination being a statutory duty. Given the anti-gun sentiment in Washington State leadership, I think we will continue to see nit-picked "reasons" why we fail to meet some imaginary standard. And yes, the under 21 is from our military exemption.

I visit Washington State on a regular basis (2-4 times a year). I just went ahead and purchased a non-resident concealed carry permit. If you are in Seattle, be aware the local PD won't process an out of state permit applicaiton, you have to go to the King County Sheriff's Office to apply. Pay fee, fill out form, get fingerprinted. Permit comes in the mail right when they say it will.

Save

Malum Prohibitum

· #3 · Jun 21, 2017

Washington is friendly to carrying a pistol openly. http://www.opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/

BUT vehicle carry must be unloaded. http://www.opencarry.org/state-info-t-z/washington/ It looks like a loaded magazine can be available, but review the law carefully yourself, as I have not carefully reviewed it myself.

I carry openly when visiting my home state, Oregon, which has no reciprocity with anybody.

Save

Malum Prohibitum

· #4 · Jun 21, 2017

State v. Casad

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Casad_(unpublished).pdf

Convicted felon carrying two rifles partially concealed by a towel. Officers conduct Terry stop. Casad admits he is a convicted felon. They arrest. The trial court threw out the charges, saying the Terry stop was unlawful.

Here, the Defendant was carrying a rifle only partially concealed and clearly identifiable as a rifle to the citizen who made the call as well as law enforcement officers, with the barrel pointing towards the ground walking on a main thoroughfare in the City of Port Angeles in daylight hours. In fact there were two rifles, which would likely be less alarming than the carrying of one rifle. Nothing indicates that the manner in which the Defendant was carrying the weapons in any way would give reasonable cause for alarm unless the mere fact of carrying a weapon within the city limits in the open in daylight on a major thoroughfare in and of itself would cause such alarm. The statute does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public. Therefore the Court finds that the officers at the time of the initial contact had no reasonable articulable suspicion that any criminal activity was occurring.

So the state appealed and made various arguments for why the stop was lawful. The appellate court rejected all of them and affirmed the trial court.

We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad's appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual's lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.

And the facts in evidence do not support a reasonable suspicion that Casad carried the weapons in a fashion that would warrant alarm. Casad wrapped a towel around the rifles and he cradled them in both arms, so he could not readily reach the trigger and he did not have the rifles "at the ready." RP at 73. In Spencer, this court upheld a conviction for unlawful display partially because the defendant warranted alarm by carrying a rifle while walking briskly with his head down, in "a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready." 75 Wn. App. at 121. But Casad's demeanor did not warrant alarm; he walked straight down the path with eyes focused forward. He did not wear combat type clothing nor act erratically. In short, other than the fact that he was carrying the guns down the street to a pawn shop, which is typically a lawful activity, Casad did nothing to warrant alarm.

Save

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month