Moving near Seattle - gun rights? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Moving near Seattle - gun rights?


Valbrandr
01-28-2009, 14:02
Friends, I might have to transfer to WA from OH in March... could anyone give me the nickel tour on gun rights in the area?

doug piston
01-28-2009, 16:37
ccw needed open carry legal but i doubt worth the hassel. just go down to the court house and get a backround check and bingo ccw in the mail

Valbrandr
01-28-2009, 19:07
Sweet, thanks man. Any restrictions on hi-caps? I have a few rifles with 30-rounders :patriot:

jdcaples
01-28-2009, 19:58
I don't know what the regulations are per se, but a Seattle gun store just sold me a 30 round mag for my new CZ VZ-58 Military Sporter.

My Glock 19 came with a 15 round mag, also from a Seattle store. I buy all my weapons "above the board" and "smack in the middle of the RADAR."

I'd have to say "no, there are no restrictions in terms of mag capacity."

A "State of Washington License to Carry Concealed Pistol" (or a permit from a reciprocating state) is a good idea.

In the distant past, a friend of mine was "sternly warned" by a King County Sheriff Deputy about a hand gun in the back seat that was field stripped but partially covered by a hand towel in an open rag. "That's technically concealed," was the speech. No one got busted, but have a permit and you'll be fine.

Boyd
01-29-2009, 11:32
Revised code of washington title 9.41 is the insomnia cure ;)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/
IANAL but no magazine restrictions until the president gets around to re doing the AWB nationally. If you're in the Bellevue area next June check out the friends of nra banquet by the East King County committee http://www.friendsofnra.org/Events.aspx?sid=49&sc=WA Tell them "Boyd sent me" for the extra steep pricing ;)

SIGSAREBETTER
01-29-2009, 12:21
No mag restrictions or assault weapons bans, unlikely to be unless it's a Fed reinstatement.

Suppressors legal to own/buy but not use. Very few legally "off limits" places, no duty to inform, one of the best RKBA states by far.

Fred Hansen
01-29-2009, 12:51
The following are a couple of the handouts I give to students attending the NRA classes that I teach:
Washington

Summary
Washington is an open carry state. However, the practice is not common due to serial misinformation about the legality of it among law enforcement. There are significant efforts by OpenCarry.org members to educate the law enforcement agencies, you may see the progress on the state forum. You are also not allowed to carry a loaded handgun in your car unless you possess a concealed pistol license

----------------------------
State Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

----------------------------------

Complete State Preemption of All Firearm Laws (No local firearms laws except for certain public buildings like courts and conventions)

---------------------------------

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

-------------------------------------

RCW 9.41.060
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:

(1) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of this state or another state;

(2) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty;

(3) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed pistol;

(4) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of the person, if possessing, using, or carrying a pistol in the usual or ordinary course of the business;

(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;

(6) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of target shooting, when those members are at or are going to or from their places of target practice;

(7) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of modern and antique firearm collecting, when those members are at or are going to or from their collector's gun shows and exhibits;

(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

(9) Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; or

(10) Law enforcement officers retired for service or physical disabilities, except for those law enforcement officers retired because of mental or stress-related disabilities. This subsection applies only to a retired officer who has: (a) Obtained documentation from a law enforcement agency within Washington state from which he or she retired that is signed by the agency's chief law enforcement officer and that states that the retired officer was retired for service or physical disability; and (b) not been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime making him or her ineligible for a concealed pistol license.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060
http://www.opencarry.org/

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.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments. (continued...)

Fred Hansen
01-29-2009, 12:51
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.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

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.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270Washington State Self-Defense Law
Title 9A, Washington Criminal Code
Chapter 9A.16 — Defenses

Section 9A.16.11O. Defense of person or property against heinous crime — Indemnification or reimbursement by state for expenses of defendant
(I) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson.
burglary, rape, murder, or any other heinous crime.
(2) When a substantial question of self defense in such a case shall exist which needs legal investigation or court action for the full determination of the facts, and the defendant’s actions are subsequently found justified under the intent of this section, the state of Washington shall indemnify or reimburse such defendant for all loss of time, legal fees, or other expenses involved in his or her defense. This indemnification or reimbursement is an award of reasonable costs which include loss of time, legal fees, or other expenses and is not an independent cause of action. The determination of an award shall be by the judge or jury at the discretion of the judge in the criminal proceeding. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant’s claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence: Provided, however, That nothing shall preclude the legislature from granting a higher award through the sundry claims process.
(3) Whenever the issue of self defense under this section is decided by a judge or whenever a judge exercises the discretion authorized under subsection (2) of this section in determining an award, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) of this section.
(4) Whenever the issue of self defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, and the judge has submitted an award determination to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:
answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based on self defense? ___
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question. ___
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? ___
b. Protecting himself or his or her family? ___
c. Protecting his or her property? ___
d. Corning to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? ___
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? ___

Comment on the Washington statute
The statute is unique in the United States, where the rights of criminals and public financing of their legal defenses seems paramount to the rights of the non-criminal component of society. The Washington law produces three sound benefits.
The first, of course, relieves the defending citizen who prevails in court of the potentially ruinous costs of a legal defense against serious criminal charges.
Second, the prospect of reimbursement of legal costs could make available competent legal representation not otherwise accessible to accused persons whose financial resources are limited. A lawyer who is confident of victory on the grounds of self-defense is assured of being paid if he prevails. There is therefore both a built-in incentive for lawyers to accept promising self-defense cases and an incentive for them to fight to win.
The third benefit of this law is that it should discourage prosecutors from pursuing prosecutions with less than wholesome merit, realizing that the state is on the financial hook for the defendant’s legal bill, expenses and even compensation for loss of time if the defendant makes a successful case of self-defense.

Doug Briggs, author of Personal Protection — The Weapons & Se/f-Defense Laws of the United StatesPlease note that the information provided above is no substitute for the advice of your attorney.

Fred Hansen
01-29-2009, 13:01
It is also important to note that the Democrats who run Washington state, and especially the leftist pigs who run Seattle, couldn't care less about what the law says. The mayor of Seattle is constantly seeking to defy our state's own preemption law, and to him the Heller decision isn't even worth the paper it is printed on; so long as Hussein is President, mayor Nichols won't have to worry about Heller being enforced either.

See more on the subject here: http://www.redcounty.com/washington/2008/06/gun-rights-in-seattle-mayors-c/

Fred Hansen
01-29-2009, 13:02
Oh, and if you ever find yourself on Vashon Island, PM me, and maybe we can go shooting at the Vashon Sportsmen's Club (http://www.vashonsportsmensclub.com).

SIGSAREBETTER
01-29-2009, 13:15
It is also important to note that the Democrats who run Washington state, and especially the leftist pigs who run Seattle, couldn't care less about what the law says. The mayor of Seattle is constantly seeking to defy our state's own preemption law, and to him the Heller decision isn't even worth the paper it is printed on; so long as Hussein is President, mayor Nichols won't have to worry about Heller being enforced either.

See more on the subject here: http://www.redcounty.com/washington/2008/06/gun-rights-in-seattle-mayors-c/



I don't really think that's a fair statement. Certainly I loathe Nickels and his ridiculous, illegal anti-gun agenda but WA residents enjoy excellent gun laws and the Rep. that pushed for the AG opinion (which was in our favor) was a Democrat himself. Also Nickels has raised this issue ONCE, not constantly, and it hasn't taken effect yet and likely wouldn't survive a challenge.

Fred Hansen
01-29-2009, 13:36
Archive for Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Proposed Seattle gun ban may draw new fire

Shootings give the mayor a mission: to ban guns from city property, even if their owners have permits. But the attorney general and gun rights activists say state law preempts the proposed rule.

By Kim Murphy
November 25, 2008

Seattle’s annual Northwest Folklife Festival is a throwback to the hippie days, a laid-back celebration of folk music, grilled salmon, and sandals with socks in a city which has always considered laid-back a point of civic pride.

So when 19-year-old Joshua Penaluna felt a sharp pain in his wrist after two men came bursting toward him through the crowd at last May’s festival, he assumed he had merely broken a bone as he fell.

“Then I heard someone say, ‘Oh my god, he’s been shot,’ ” Penaluna recalled recently.

Penaluna’s girlfriend was also hit by the stray bullet and another person was injured. The shootings, in a city where sporadic but horrific incidents of violent street crime rattle its culture of progressive cool, sent Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels on a mission: banning guns on city property, including at parks, sporting events and street fairs. Next month, he will hold a public hearing on his executive order.

In a state where more than 239,000 residents have permits to carry concealed weapons – and many consider a gun in their pocket a better deterrent to street crime than any law the mayor may think up – the proposal appears almost certain to become a local gun control battle in a year when the courts and possibly the new administration of President-elect Barack Obama are set to redefine the national debate.

In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects Americans’ right to own guns for self-defense, guns rights advocates are girding for a new round of court cases in California, Chicago and elsewhere. The cases will determine how far the justices’ decision striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban

can be extended to apply to state and local governments.

In Seattle, the battle will be over a Washington state law that specifically reserves the “entire field of firearms regulation” to the state. Last month, the state Attorney General’s office issued an opinion that Nickels could not legally preempt state law with the handgun ban.

No matter. The mayor’s staff announced Friday he is proceeding with a public hearing on Dec. 15 to take testimony on the proposed administrative rule that would go into effect next spring, making anyone entering city property with a gun guilty of criminal trespass.

“Our parks, our community centers and our public events are safer without guns,” Nickels said at a June news conference when he announced his executive order for the ban. “At many properties, including City Hall, you can bring a gun if you have a concealed-weapons permit. Under this order, people with concealed weapons will be asked to give up their weapon or leave.”

Nickels was joined at the press conference by Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske, who said in an October debate sponsored by the Rosenkranz Foundation in New York that laws like Washington’s, which require the issuance of concealed gun permits to anyone who meets the standards, are too lax.

In the case of the Folklife Festival shooting, he said, the young man whose gun went off during a scuffle had been issued a concealed weapon permit even though he had been under drug addiction treatment with methadone and had “a number of other problems.”

“That is a person that should’ve never had a concealed-firearms permit,” Kerlikowske said. “There has to be far more than being mobile and not being blind as a reason to give someone a firearms permit.”

The backdrop to Seattle’s gun debate is the growing concern about crime, sometimes violent, in downtown Seattle. The downtown core’s edgier neighborhoods have been havens for drugs and prostitution, but lately upscale condos and restaurants are popping up as part of an attempt to fight sprawl and keep the city from rolling up the sidewalks when downtown workers head for the Eastside at 5 p.m.

Merchants and residents in neighborhoods like Belltown have been on a harangue against the police department, complaining that street bums and their occasionally violent counterparts are making their community’s sidewalks a no-go zone after dark.

One Belltown woman became an Internet sensation this year by posting home videos shot from her apartment window depicting various scenes of drug-dealing, heroin-shooting and sex – with whimsical titles like “Crackhead makes a pipe out of a can while wearing a sombrero.”

Nothing was to prepare the city, though, for what happened last month to 53-year-old Edward McMichael – the offbeat merrymaker known as the “Tuba Man” who had long been a fixture outside sporting events across the city, playing his tuba in oversize Dr. Seuss or Uncle Sam hats.

McMichael was not far from where the Folklife Festival is held when he was set upon by five toughs who the same night had been hitting up others for money and cell phones. As he lay on the ground in a fetal position, the youths kicked him and beat him, fatally injuring the Seattle icon.

More than 1,000 people turned out at Qwest Field for a memorial service on Nov. 12.

Although Seattle has problems with gang violence in the suburbs, and the papers have written exhaustively about some recent high-profile shootings elsewhere in the state, relatively little of the recent downtown crime has involved guns, which is one reason not many Belltown residents are lining up to support the mayor’s proposed gun ban.

In a column for the local online newspaper, Crosscut, veteran journalist Knute Berger argued that citizens who may have good reason to feel threatened in the city’s often backcountry-like parks have every right to go there legally armed.

“I’ve been stalked. I know others who have been the victims of stalkers and involved in domestic violence situations that pose an ongoing threat,” Berger wrote.

“To ask citizens with the legal right to carry guns elsewhere to disarm themselves in circumstances where vigilance is often required and protection hard to come by is unfair, even dangerous.”

Gun rights advocates, who have pledged to sue immediately if Seattle proceeds with the ban, agree.

“It’s criminals who break laws, by nature of being criminals, and they’re not going to care if you pass a law saying you can’t have a gun on public property. It’s meaningless,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which with the National Rifle Assn. is challenging gun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.

Those challenges are having a measure of success: lawyers at the San Francisco Housing Authority said this week they are preparing to settle the case by revising their prohibition against all firearms in public housing to a ban on “unlawful possession of a firearm,” meaning tenants with gun permits could still keep a weapon at home.

Seattle officials said they will ask the Legislature next year to expand the state’s preemption law to make room for regulations like the one Nickels is proposing.

Penaluna, for his part, doesn’t think a gun ban would have made him any more safe.

“I was hurt by a stupid person who happened to make a stupid decision with a gun,” he said.

“There are thousands of people all over Seattle, I know, who walk strapped. And they’re not gang-bangers. They’re responsible adults who are afraid of gang-bangers,” he said. “I think this ordinance is nothing more than a classic governmental way of trying to put a Band-Aid over a problem instead of finding a solution.”

Murphy is a Times staff writer.

kim.murphy@latime.com

Stuart Glascock of the Times Seattle bureau contributed to this report.

Fred Hansen
01-29-2009, 13:58
I don't really think that's a fair statement. Certainly I loathe Nickels and his ridiculous, illegal anti-gun agenda but WA residents enjoy excellent gun laws and the Rep. that pushed for the AG opinion (which was in our favor) was a Democrat himself. Also Nickels has raised this issue ONCE, not constantly, and it hasn't taken effect yet and likely wouldn't survive a challenge.Think it unfair all you would like. The fact is that Nichols has asked the legislature to alter the state's preemption law just in case his Executive Order doesn't hold up, and his flunky Girlikowski is willing to arrest people on trespassing charges in the event they are found to be carrying. As to the Rep(s) who pushed for the ruling, there were several of them-- a good 4 or 5 of them--all Democrats from rural areas, like Longview, Hoquiam, etc...

Feel free to be impressed by a tiny fraction of Democrats who give **** about the RKBA. I'll keep my eyes on the rest of the rat pack. :upeyes:

Valbrandr
01-29-2009, 14:19
Gents, thank you all so much.

I'm relieved that all my kit will still be usable. Yet that Mayor... wow, after doing a few searches online about him, he's absolutely way out of line on concealed carry.

I'm just as sick of politicians basing public policy on sensationalism as anyone, but it looks like he's really searching for any ground to stand on, and in my experience it is precisely those personalities that will do anything they can to assuage their own agendas.

I'll definitely post here again when I get up there, thanks again.

SIGSAREBETTER
01-29-2009, 17:30
Think it unfair all you would like. The fact is that Nichols has asked the legislature to alter the state's preemption law just in case his Executive Order doesn't hold up, and his flunky Girlikowski is willing to arrest people on trespassing charges in the event they are found to be carrying. As to the Rep(s) who pushed for the ruling, there were several of them-- a good 4 or 5 of them--all Democrats from rural areas, like Longview, Hoquiam, etc...

Feel free to be impressed by a tiny fraction of Democrats who give **** about the RKBA. I'll keep my eyes on the rest of the rat pack. :upeyes:


Don't roll your eyes at me just because I corrected your misleading characterization.

Just because one fat-assed Mayor ASKS a Legislature to do something it, at the moment, doesn't seem remotely inclined to doesn't speak for WA as a whole in any way, shape, or form. The fact is that not only has preemption not been an issue in Oly. so far, but the proposed Seattle ban hasn't even been enacted yet.

The Seattle Police chief is another story altogether, but WA gun owners have a lot to be thankful for. Vigilance is always welcome, but I swear every time I turn around some WA guy is coming into a regional query thread and bashing state government on RKBA with the skimpiest evidence. EVERY state has anti-gun people in power, and WA is no different. But overall only a handful of states can compete with how relaxed our gun laws are.

Boyd
02-09-2009, 09:05
Actually, Nickles hasn't asked the legislature to yet... what he was saying he would do (before the most excellent hearing where pro rkba folk 'stormed the castle') was an executive order. So, while I agree that wouldn't have survived judicial action. It really is quite beyond the pale that the mayor of our largest city would consider breaking the law (and make no mistake about it, many parties explained patiently just how the executive order would be illegal and would be overturned) to pander to his control nut friends.

So, in context of this thread, (we agree) yes please bring your guns to Washington and enjoy a great RKBA environment thanks to the activists that came before us. But, bring your activism with you because all is not milk and honey. Yet. -Boyd

SIGSAREBETTER
02-09-2009, 14:51
Actually, Nickles hasn't asked the legislature to yet... what he was saying he would do (before the most excellent hearing where pro rkba folk 'stormed the castle') was an executive order. So, while I agree that wouldn't have survived judicial action. It really is quite beyond the pale that the mayor of our largest city would consider breaking the law (and make no mistake about it, many parties explained patiently just how the executive order would be illegal and would be overturned) to pander to his control nut friends.

So, in context of this thread, (we agree) yes please bring your guns to Washington and enjoy a great RKBA environment thanks to the activists that came before us. But, bring your activism with you because all is not milk and honey. Yet. -Boyd

He has asked various members of the Legislature in the past, but you're otherwise completely correct.

tglahn17
02-19-2009, 01:34
Friends, I might have to transfer to WA from OH in March...

I might be transferring from Seattle to OH in a few months. I think the gun laws in WA are cool. For a concealed carry license, all they want are fingerprints, a background check, and $60. Thirty days later, you'll get your license which is good for five years. As others have noted, no restrictions on magazine capacity. If you're going to be in the Seattle/Tacoma area, I recommend the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club in Bremerton http://www.gunsafety.org/ Good luck,

3/325
02-19-2009, 02:27
For a concealed carry license, all they want are fingerprints, a background check, and $60. Thirty days later, you'll get your license which is good for five years. As others have noted, no restrictions on magazine capacity. If you're going to be in the Seattle/Tacoma area, I recommend the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club in Bremerton http://www.gunsafety.org/ Good luck,

Getting a CPL is easy. Show up at your local Sheriff's office, fill out the form, get your fingers rolled, and pay the $60. Washington is a Shall Issue state. I got mine in 9 days... I've heard of other people getting theirs even faster.

Private sales/transfers do not require any paperwork.

CPL allows you to walk out of the gun store that day with your purchase. It also allows you to carry a loaded handgun in your car.

Open Carry in WA requires no license or other paperwork (you must be 21 or over).

+1 on Kitsap Rifle and Revolver, although they're a little far from the SeaTac area, it's an excellent range run by sensible people.

jdcaples
02-20-2009, 00:54
Open Carry in WA requires no license or other paperwork (you must be 21 or over).



While this is true about open carry in WA State, at least in King County, there is a caveat: if you're openly carrying and an uninformed or otherwise unsympathetic citizen is uncomfortable by the mere sight of a holstered weapon, 911 may be called. Officers will respond to the scene, talk to the person "brandishing" a weapon (even if it never leaves a holster). It's my understanding that if you have a concealment permit, officers will ask you to put it out of sight. You may have to redeem the gun if you don't have a concealed carry permit from the local precinct when you have a proper means of transporting the gun.

This is true of pistols. It's also happened in the parking lot of a sporting goods store with a new rifle being carried safely - but obviously out of a box - to a car. That anecdotal data point was relayed to me by an employee of the store.

It's my understanding, and I welcome a correction from any King County or Seattle LEO reading, that concealed carry in the Seattle area is - arguably - promoted/encouraged by LEO agency practices (if not policy).

3/325
02-20-2009, 02:17
There are plenty of stories recounting a variety of reactions from LEOs, and I recommend opencarry.org (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/) for local news on the topic. Some go really well, some go badly, but most seem to be in the middle. Training bulletins that spell out the legality of open carry have been sent out to PDs and SDs in most of the counties around here but every department is going to have its share of FNGs and Old Timers with attitude. Sadly, those are the stories that make the biggest splash.

Cops will sometimes ask an OCer to conceal, sometimes they say nothing. But if someone reports a "man with a gun" then you can't count on having a conversation of some kind with someone in uniform. It's perfectly reasonable that a cop would want a word or two, if for no other reason than to assess the carrier's state of mind and to officially say that the situation has been "dealt with."

As long as armed citizens act like calm, rational, mature individuals, the trouble will be kept to a minimum.

WSUXJer
02-20-2009, 09:40
While this is true about open carry in WA State, at least in King County, there is a caveat: if you're openly carrying and an uninformed or otherwise unsympathetic citizen is uncomfortable by the mere sight of a holstered weapon, 911 may be called. Officers will respond to the scene, talk to the person "brandishing" a weapon (even if it never leaves a holster). It's my understanding that if you have a concealment permit, officers will ask you to put it out of sight. You may have to redeem the gun if you don't have a concealed carry permit from the local precinct when you have a proper means of transporting the gun.

This is true of pistols. It's also happened in the parking lot of a sporting goods store with a new rifle being carried safely - but obviously out of a box - to a car. That anecdotal data point was relayed to me by an employee of the store.

It's my understanding, and I welcome a correction from any King County or Seattle LEO reading, that concealed carry in the Seattle area is - arguably - promoted/encouraged by LEO agency practices (if not policy).I think you might be confused by the wording of the RCW. 9.41.270 states "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." Warrants alarm is not the same as causes alarm, though there are a lot of rumors about it. The state has determined that openly carrying a firearm in a holster does not warrant alarm. You may however find some LEO's who are unaware of this. ;)

Fred Hansen
02-20-2009, 10:24
More useful information is available here: http://www.gunlaws.com/links/linkswa.htm

jdcaples
02-20-2009, 11:43
You may however find some LEO's who are unaware of this. ;)

You've succinctly agreed with me using superior eloquence. :) It's not the unaware LEOs that are the crux of the problem. It's the reactionary population that lacks education regarding RKBA and as such is encumbered with inability to recogonize responsible behavior because a big scary gun with no badge has taken center stage.

3/325
02-20-2009, 23:43
It's the reactionary population that lacks education regarding RKBA...

Some people will call the cops because they just plain don't like guns and are overjoyed at the prospect of hassling someone who chooses to be armed. But you're right; most of them are flat out clueless.

rahrah12
03-22-2009, 20:44
I might be transferring from Seattle to OH in a few months. I think the gun laws in WA are cool. For a concealed carry license, all they want are fingerprints, a background check, and $60. Thirty days later, you'll get your license which is good for five years. As others have noted, no restrictions on magazine capacity. If you're going to be in the Seattle/Tacoma area, I recommend the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club in Bremerton http://www.gunsafety.org/ Good luck,
2 days later for me...

spdski
04-19-2009, 20:35
Look at the can of worms you opened!