2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Allison, as I understand it, you're setting up a show where you, Jim Beal, and Ralph Fascitelli will discuss open carry.  I think a reasonable question to each man would be: How does your position square with the right of self defense?  After all, the right of self defense would come into question only in a society of cannibals. 

MD

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Alan, you don't fully understand RCW 9.41.270, the law to which you're referring.  That's hardly your fault though; it's a very murky law.  If one redacts some of the voluminous listings form the law, it says:

.270 (1) redacted (#2) It shall be unlawful for any person to [do something with a weapon] 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.  The meaning isn't substantially changed.  

Without going into full analysis, there needs to be a combination of factors that would lead a reasonable person to think that the weapon carrier intended to intimidate another or that circumstances justify alarm for safety.  The word "warrants" is misunderstood by many to mean "cause" but does not.  The concept of justification is central to the definition of "warrant" but isn't found in definitions of "cause". 

If a person with a phobia of guns walks into a public place where someone is open carrying a pistol, he may well freak out.  This would be unfortunate but hardly breaking the law.  Bearing arms is a Constitutional right; see Article 1, section 24 of the Washington Constitution.  If the law meant that you couldn't open carry, it would be unconstitutional on its face.

MD

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

To answer Allison Frost's question: In a properly educated society, it would never be considered confrontational to open carry a pistol as long as there was no additional threatening behavior.  These behaviors might include verbal threats, especially when combined with drawing the pistol from its holster, but either one, in the right circumstances would be sufficient.  

I referred to a properly educated society because we don't have one right now.  Newspapers and televison, whether meaning to or not, have created an impression among many that only a criminal would have a gun.  The fact is that criminals almost never open carry as it would make no tactical sense.  They lie in wait to surprise their victim but wish to appear innocuous until that moment.   

The flip side of that is the legally armed citizen, whose first concern is personal defense.  By carrying openly he defines who he is for all to see.  One of the behaviors he learns is to be in "condition yellow" whenever he's out and about.  This is a state of alertness whereby he is aware of his surroundings but isn't alarmed.  To be aware of his surroundings he must look at people, must he not?  Therefore, looking at people is not threatening behavior. 

An additional purpose to open carry is education.  When people see a person open carrying they can accept it as legal, ask the person if it is indeed legal, or call the cops.  In the last two cases they will be educated.  Can the cops being called be annoying to the legally armed citizen?  Not usually.  Occasionally we run into cops who don't know the law but they can be educated too. 

MD

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context