Open carry – slight victory in Washington state

[pax]

In December 2011, a man was walking his dog peacefully in the park here in Washington state when he was approached by a police officer who demanded to see his identification because he was open carrying. The man offered to show the law-enforcement officer the state law, whereupon the LEO drew down on him and pointed a firearm at his chest from just a few feet away.

This week, the man won his lawsuit. Good for him! I am happy to live in a state where open carry is legal. I am especially happy that some of my neighbors have the time and the mentality where they are willing to go through that kind of encounter simply to keep it so.

But that does not mean that I, personally, want to be the recipient of the next successful but years-long lawsuit – nor does it mean I want to spend any time looking down the muzzle of a firearm held by a twitchy, unhappy person who has limited civil immunity. And it certainly does not mean that I am going to tell every person that I encounter that of course they should only ever open carry. It does not mean that I will gloss over the risks and exaggerate the benefits of this carry method. I think people deserve more respect than that. I think people deserve to know everything about the types of carry that are possible, and about the benefits, drawbacks, and potential consequences of each one. I think anything less than that is unconscionable and unkind. Would it not suck to get drawn into that kind of a lawsuit, if you did not know in advance that such a thing was a possibility when you decided to open carry? But, for those who do know the risks, and choose to take the actions because they want to help change society in a particular direction – I applaud you. You are doing a good thing... as long as you're doing it with your eyes wide open.

I love educating people about all types of carry. I love to talk about the benefits and drawbacks of appendix carry (your femoral artery is at risk). It is awesome to teach people how to use an ankle holster (you cannot draw from an ankle holster while you are running away), or a bellyband (sometimes the gun pops out when you bend over), or a shoulder holster variant (watch out for your own brachial artery). I enjoy teaching women how to use their purses to carry a firearm, and how to do so with less risk (if you do it wrong, your child might die). I love teaching people how to retain control of their own firearm, should they get involved in a close up situation with someone who wants to take it away from them. I am a big fan of carry, no matter what your personal preferred technique for doing that might be. And I am a big advocate of education. I think ignorance is one of the biggest causes of premature death in this world.

All of this means that I do wish more open carry advocates were a lot more realistic about what they doing. I wish the open-carry community would strongly commit to educating each other in good ways to reduce the inherent risks of their preferred carry methods, rather than refusing to admit that those risks do exist. I wish they worked a little harder at being good ambassadors, rather than simply being confrontational in a lot of cases.

I suspect this post will bring some of the more rabid open carry fans out of the woodwork, where they will comment, "OMG! People are so stupid! I can't believe people don't know the facts about open carry!". And those commenters will not be referring to the idiotic LEO who pointed a firearm at short range toward a law abiding citizen who was minding his own business while following the law to the letter. Oh, no. They will be referring to the people who looked at the news, thought about the practical consequences of dealing with law enforcement officers on that kind of basis, and decided that concealed carry was the way to go for them.

pax

 

[44 AMP]

Interesting, I wonder just what information we are not hearing (from the link) about the incident. All I got was a man was open carrying, a cop asks him for his ID, and the man "offers to show the officer a copy of the state law".

This is not compliance with the officer's request. Now the cop has an openly armed man, not complying with the officer's instructions.

So the cop draws on him. Based ONLY on this info, it seems that the officer responded to what he saw. An armed man not following police instructions.

There must be more to this, I would think, since the guy won his lawsuit.

It did put me in mind of something a friend of mine has experienced, in general, (but without the guns). He's a motorcycle enthusiast (and yes, physically resembles the stereotype), and he has a registered antique motorcycle. Under the RCW, he is exempt from the helmet law requirement when riding his registered antique motorcycle. He carries a copy of the law with him, to show to the officers when he gets stopped.

And he does get stopped. Does everything the officer tells him to, and when his compliance is established, he shows them the law. He says it gets him out of getting a ticket, about half the time. The other half the time, the officer writes him the ticket, and says, "if you're right, the judge will throw it out..."

My point is, that you may be right, you may be entire legal and fully within your rights, but seldom is a police officer going to take just your word for that. And when things turn ...unexpected, the risk to all goes way up.

 

[sigcurious]

I am not familiar with WA law, but I suspect it has to do with how the law is worded. In that because of however it is worded it's not a matter of compliance, ie open carry is only legal if x,y,z, but rather open carry is legal. As such, while just complying would have been easier, in the end the officer drew on a citizen doing nothing illegal, or that would require proof of exemption from being illegal, for not complying with an unlawful command.

While it may seem imprudent to not comply, if, as the winning of the lawsuit implies, the law is indeed worded in a manner that does not require proof of exception to the law, compliance would not result in the officer being able to respond better in future situations, as they would continue to assume that it was generally illegal incorrectly.

Hopefully Pax can shed light on the specifics of the law in WA.

 

[Hiker 1]

compliance would not result in the officer being able to respond better in future situations, as they would continue to assume that it was generally illegal incorrectly

Very interesting point.

Personally, I prefer not to antagonize a man with a gun, a badge and an attitude in the dark, but maybe I'm just crazed.

 

[sigcurious]

And I would prefer that officers be fully aware of every law and the intricacies of case law surrounding those laws, that they're supposed to be enforcing, but, unfortunately, that is an unrealistic expectation. However, officers should recognize that they may be mistaken about the law.

Situations like this are bound to arise from time to time and just as it behooves us as carriers, open or concealed, to behave civilly, the same can be asked of police officers. Based on the story, and generally speaking, being offered to be shown the relevant law on which there is contention should not be viewed as antagonistic.



I've been poking around the WA weapons and firearms statutes, and as far as I can tell OC is legal by virtue of not being codified as illegal or specifically regulated(other than some prohibited places). The only statute I can find that would regulate OC seems to be one about carrying in a manner which would warrant alarm. This however likely creates a grey area as to what exactly warrants alarm.

 

[Hiker 1]

Yes, it sounds like the cop overreacted. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

 

[Koda94]

I find it interesting the officer merley asked for identification of an armed citizen he may have assumed was not lawfully carrying. Putting myself in the officers shoes, i wouldnt care what a person can tell me about the law when I request ID. Perhaps the officer did overreact, but that may be understandable based on his LE experience.

I agree, this may not be that huge of a win for open carry

 

[OuTcAsT]

This is not compliance with the officer's request. Now the cop has an openly armed man, not complying with the officer's instructions.

And, this is the same circular logic we have discussed many times before.

Just because the officer "requests" it, does not make it a lawful order, any more than an un-armed citizen would be required to show identification "just because".

My point is, that you may be right, you may be entire legal and fully within your rights, but seldom is a police officer going to take just your word for that. And when things turn ...unexpected, the risk to all goes way up.

While you may be somewhat correct, the fact is, if we continue this "blind compliance" then officers will continue on in their ignorance. Sometimes, there must be a line drawn in the sand and, someone has to be the one to do it.

You can either "comply" and let the trampling continue, or you can attempt to educate, either directly ( as this man tried to do ) or, through litigation. Either way, he "drew the lne" and others will ultimately benefit from it.

Which carries the greater risk in the long term ?

 

[44 AMP]

While I agree completely that our officers are underpaid, under supported, and often under trained (particularly concerning the nuances of firearms law), and ought to be better, there is are practical considerations about when,and where we draw the line in the sand.

One can find many examples of people being shot, of often killed, simply because they did not comply, or comply fast enough with an officer's request.
And because the officer believed at the time that there was a threat.

The time to argue about the legality of an officer's "request" is afterwards. In court, if necessary (and it often is).

Just because the officer "requests" it, does not make it a lawful order, any more than an un-armed citizen would be required to show identification "just because".

There are places in the US that still have vagrancy laws on the books. There are many places where an officer can ask you for ID, simply because you are there, and be in full compliance with the law.

if we continue this "blind compliance" then officers will continue on in their ignorance. Sometimes, there must be a line drawn in the sand and, someone has to be the one to do it.

You can either "comply" and let the trampling continue, or you can attempt to educate, either directly ( as this man tried to do ) or, through litigation. Either way, he "drew the lne" and others will ultimately benefit from it.

Which carries the greater risk in the long term ?

At the personal level, if you get shot in the short term, the odds of there being a long term for you, go waay down. Yes, we need to fight these battles, for the good of all, but we need to do it smart, for the good of all,(and us in particular) as well.