Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:10:21 PM EDT

First of all he is underage (under 21) so I'm really not sure how this would apply to him.

A taser is not a firearm, but I'm finding nothing regarding tasers in the RCW's. At 19 is there anything preventing him from concealed carrying a taser?

I honestly don't know.

I figure this might apply:



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.


[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 426; 1969 c 8 § 1.]

NOTES:


Finding -- Intent -- Severability -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.


Effective date -- 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.






-Rob
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:21:09 PM EDT
You can bet that will apply.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:28:42 PM EDT



Tell him nice try.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:31:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 6:33:17 PM EDT by SKSGuy]
Must say though...thats a very ambiguous law.

It even says carrying a firearm is illegal. And doesn't specify any exceptions.

*sigh* I tell him just to wait until he's 21 all the time.


-Rob
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:41:33 PM EDT
I would just tell him to look at section (2) and then (3)(c) and weigh the risks.

If he is the type of person who finds himself in defensive situations a lot, perhaps he should look at the source of his problems rather than try to find a solution to the symptoms.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:43:23 PM EDT
he's a rent-a-cop. he cannot carry on the job but he got to thinking about it for his own personal protection when he's on his own time.

Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:46:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 6:53:40 PM EDT by Phil_in_Seattle]

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:
Must say though...thats a very ambiguous law.

It even says carrying a firearm is illegal. And doesn't specify any exceptions.

*sigh* I tell him just to wait until he's 21 all the time.


-Rob



No it doesn't say that at all.


It shall be unlawful for any person to carry... ...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.


That doesn't say it's illegal to carry a firearm, it says it's illegal to carry it in a way that will scare people.

There are various local ordinances that regulate Tasers, stun guns, and similar electronic or energy devices and multiple bills were proposed in the last legislative session about the sale and use of projectile stun guns; with a committe forming to review the sale and use and added the specific crime of assault of a peace officer with a stun gun to third degree assault.


ETA- a taser is a bad idea anyway, he won't have a gun to back it up and if he were to use it on someone (whether he just pointed it at them or actuallt tased them) they'd in my opinion be justified in responding with lethal force if able to do so.

Tell him to go with a personal protection spray devices under RCW 9.91.160 instead.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:50:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 6:51:54 PM EDT by SKSGuy]

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:
Must say though...thats a very ambiguous law.

It even says carrying a firearm is illegal. And doesn't specify any exceptions.

*sigh* I tell him just to wait until he's 21 all the time.


-Rob



No it doesn't say that at all.


It shall be unlawful for any person to carry... ...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.


That doesn't say it's illegal to carry a firearm, it says it's illegal to carry it in a way that will scare people.

There are various local ordinances that regulate Tasers, stun guns, and similar electronic or energy devices and multiple bills were proposed in the last legislative session about the sale and use of projectile stun guns; with a committe forming to review the sale and use and added the specific crime of assault of a peace officer with a stun gun to third degree assault.




Well...I agree with you Phil. Carrying a gun in plain sight will cause some people to lose their marbles. Anyway...yeah I noticed a few municipalities have either banned it or heavily regulated it. From what I gather so far we have: Bainbridge Island, Bellingham, Port Angeles, and Pullman.

And I read abotu teh 3rd degree assault if used on an officer. Personally I feel that makes sense.

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:22:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:23:17 AM EDT by mordecai]
I'm not seeing it. 9.41.270 as stated above is about intimidation and warranting alarm in others.

Typically, the offense (no matter how subjective) has to be in the "victim" (eg, someone would have to see or become aware of the carrying, and then feel squeamish.)

Now, case law says LE cannot be the victim of such crimes.

The part I am vague on is whether "warranting alarm in others" is still third-party or has somehow been interpreted by the courts as a disorderly conduct.

I'm happy to stand corrected, but I believe unless someone discovers whatever "weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm" you have, you would be within your rights. This does not abridge 9.41.250(2) or any other likewise statute.

"9.41.250(2) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon;"

Now if someone could provide the interpreted difference between "Dangerous Weapon" and "Weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm", we may be closer to an answer....
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:47:46 AM EDT
I brought this up a while back, IIRC, it came down to how the Tazer is purchased, since there is a model that *I think* has to be transferred by an FFL (as a pistol?)......

The logic then is, if transferred as a pistol, you need a CPL to carry it.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:13:27 PM EDT
I think its a bad idea. hers
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:44:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:51:52 PM EDT
Pepper Spray can "produce bodily harm" as well though...

hmmm...
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:59:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
Pepper Spray can "produce bodily harm" as well though...

hmmm...



So can a fucking ballpoint pen.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:04:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:


Well...I agree with you Phil. Carrying a gun in plain sight will cause some people to lose their marbles. Anyway...yeah I noticed a few municipalities have either banned it or heavily regulated it. From what I gather so far we have: Bainbridge Island, Bellingham, Port Angeles, and Pullman.

And I read abotu teh 3rd degree assault if used on an officer. Personally I feel that makes sense.

-Rob


use a taser on a cop, you'll probably end up dead.



There is a "civillian" taser, the M18C, it's a 1 shot deal, designed to shoot, stun and run away. I imagine it would work really well that way, it's set for a 5 second run when the trigger is pressed. There are serial numbers attached to see the registered user when deployed.
Some municipalities are outlawing civilian use of the tasers, but as far as state law, they're legal.
They cost about a grand though..

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:08:11 PM EDT
In college I carried a stun "gun". I had to walk home from work at 1am everynight and there was a serial rapist doing his magic on campus at the time (university of Michigan, 1993 or 4). I bought it off an infomercial. I never even thought that it might be illegal to carry. It looked like a lady remington shaver from the 70's It had a white pearlized outer shell. It claimed that the assailant would lose bodily function and piss his pants for a short period of time... I forget how long the window was, but it varied depending on his size and stuff.

If it is illegal, how could they sell it on an infomercial to a 19 year old?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:18:31 PM EDT
That's also news to me. I had the impression that tasers were actually encouraged to be used by civilians.

Samething with pepper spray, which can be bought anywhere without any requirements or warning about legality of use. Only place I know of that restricts are airplanes, but for obvious reasons.


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:19:10 PM EDT
I had a half dozen flyers encouraging use of tazers to civilians. This is the one they were promoting and even offered a live human trainer if you could get 20 buyers together.

Item #: 26009 Reloadable
Description: AIR TASER X26C(CITIZEN)BLACK
Manufacturer: Taser International
Model #: X26C
Type: Taser Non-Lethal
Weight: 7 oz for the X26C
Additional Features 1: X26C, Battery System, 6 AIR Cartridge Reloads 15ft
Additional Features 2: Carrying Case, Target, Training DVD & Certificate
MSRP $999


Ouch on the price....Might as well get a real gun....A really nice real gun at that...
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:23:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
If it is illegal, how could they sell it on an infomercial to a 19 year old?




Are you serious?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:40:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:50:49 PM EDT
Bellingham Draft Ordinance AB16331 PDF Prohibits the possession, sale, or use of tasers, stun guns and similar electronic or energy devices (Passed as Ordinance No. 2005-01-006, 1-10-05)

Such a stupid law. They DO permit concealed carry of firearms with a license (as they should), but not "less than lethal" devices?


Glad the whole state isn't this stupid (yet?).

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:07:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:18:03 PM EDT
Thats a taste of what things would be like without state preemption. Banning of everything. Thank god for the constitution, state preemption, and everything else.


-Rob
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:26:23 PM EDT
That X26 movie is really impressive. It that thing works as they say I would rather having it instead of a firearm. However, that choice has been already negated made by the morons that legislate this state (and others, apparently). Sometimes I have the impression that stupidity is (highly) contagious.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:33:04 PM EDT
Yeaah! thats what he has. The X26 police issue (whatever the hell that means?)

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:40:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Originally Posted By mordecai:
Now if someone could provide the interpreted difference between "Dangerous Weapon" and "Weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm (WACPBH)", we may be closer to an answer....



Pretty sure those terms are defined in the RCW, I know they are in the cheat book in the LE supply shops.



I've been unable to find them, but that doesn't mean much. One could wonder, since the terms are different, whether a WACPBH is an item that doesn't rise to the level of Dangerous; and since Tasers are meant to be less-than-lethal and not cause permanent injury, I don't see how they are Dangerous Weapons.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 3:38:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MountedMedic:
I think its a bad idea. Like others have said, if he uses the taser and the threat still escalates, he doesnt have a side arm to use if lethal force is justified.




So for you and the others who think this way, it's a better option to just get his ass beat? Come on, if he felt the need to use it and it failed is he really in any worse position than he was in before?

And for the other person who said that a defense spray was better? Why? It's still an excalation of force.

Use both for options incase one fails. Better than a tough word, and something to try before having to actually fight.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 7:05:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 7:08:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 7:54:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:

Deadly weapon special verdict — Definition.


For purposes of this section, ...


Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm -- Unlawful carrying or handling


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 WACPBH ... that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.


The way I see it you're in trouble if you alarm or intimidate another while carrying a WACPBH, as you would be in trouble if you alarmed or intimidated a person at all. A WACPBH could be anything (beer bottle, axe handle, etc.) not normally defined as a Deadly Weapon but used to intimidate another, it's a WACPBH only as long as it's used to intimidate or alarm. As such, as long as no one complains about the Taser and it's not a Deadly Weapon (defined and illegal to possess) then you can carry it.



Agreed.


That said, citizens have no place for less than lethal projectile weapons (esp one that can EASILY cause death) as citizens are ONLY authorized to shoot when in fear for their life and then their ONLY response can be lethal force, you are not authorized to shoot to wound or fire warning shots as those demonstrate that you were not in fear for your life.

If he's worried about getting his ass beat I suggest he change his lifestyle.



I'm only playing devil's advocate - but a Deadly Weapon isn't a Dangerous Weapon, and 9.41.250(1) defines intimidation and gives a few examples of a WACPBH, but doesn't define one. RCW 9.41.010 would be a perfect place to find either of them, but the powers that be have not done such.

And having "no place for a less than lethal projectile weapons" for citizens is a bit over-arching. Where does that leave the elderly, the disabled, felons and objectors? These sorts, either by fate, choice or consequence, may be unable to deploy deadly force but certainly don't lose their right to self-protection all together. Even the prescribed RCW 9.91.160 (Personal protection spray devices) acknowledges that a less-than-lethal projectile device is an option in self-defense. [/devil's advocate]
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:08:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:23:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:
sprays are not projectile weapons

felons can't carry weapons at all

the elderly and disable can just as easily carry a firearm




The Taser seems to be a better option to an elderly or to anyone not willing to carry the death of another person in their conscience, even to protect their own life. I still find hard to believe that anyone with an IQ higher than 50 would forbid its use by civilians. Of course, pointing a Taser or a deadly firearm to anyone without a good reason should be treated the same way on what concerns "stupid behavior".

Personally, I'd still rather carry a Taser (assuming they work as well as advertised) than a firearm since it would only be for personal protection, that is close range, and it seems more effective on individuals on drugs (worst case scenario?) than a pistol.

Just my 2c.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:19:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:25:30 PM EDT
Aside from the legality issue, I've never fired one. How forgiving are they when aiming? Easy to do, or similar to a pistol? Seems like it would be expensive to practice so when the adrenilan is pumping will a person who isn't used to firing a handgun of some sort going to be able to hit the target? Thinking about the disabled and others that might not be willing to carry an actual firearm.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:34:48 PM EDT
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 3:17:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?


Shoot it sideways and try to get them to hold hands????

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:38:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:49:36 PM EDT
I was just chatting with an SPD friend of mine. I asked him about his experiences with a Taser. Told me he opted to not take the training. He had three reasons: 1. Didn't want one more thing hanging from his belt; 2. Didn't want to hesitate while thinking whether to draw and fire the Taser or his sidearm, that can be deadly; 3. Didn't want to have a review board questioning him down the spectrum of choices and second guessing his choice under the situation. Make a lot of sense to me.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:34:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?


Shoot it sideways and try to get them to hold hands????






+2

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:38:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?



If you have two attackers at the same time you can incapacitate one while dealing with the other or, if both are armed then even a firearm will not help (maybe assisted by a miracle ).

Or you do believe in Hollywood?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:48:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:52:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rossi:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?



If you have two attackers at the same time you can incapacitate one while dealing with the other or, if both are armed then even a firearm will not help (maybe assisted by a miracle ).

Or you do believe in Hollywood?



In other words multiple attackers mean that you can taze one and then it's hand to hand after that, and hopefully it's over with and you are gone before the tazed one gets back up.

I choose 1911 and pepperspray instead.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:33:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:

Originally Posted By Rossi:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?



If you have two attackers at the same time you can incapacitate one while dealing with the other or, if both are armed then even a firearm will not help (maybe assisted by a miracle ).

Or you do believe in Hollywood?



In other words multiple attackers mean that you can taze one and then it's hand to hand after that, and hopefully it's over with and you are gone before the tazed one gets back up.

I choose 1911 and pepperspray instead.




Don't get me wrong. I'm not against using a normal firearm. I'm just questioning which one is more effective in stopping an attack. End justifies the mean.

It seems to me that the Taser is still a better option. Regarding carrying both LawTalkingGuy makes a good point. If you carry both there will be always the questioning and/or the decision time let alone the extra load that can be very clumsy. Well well... nothing's perfect. Moreover the original point, if it's illegal to carry then there's no decision to make since it's already made.

BTW... Glock... instead of 1911.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:38:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:

Originally Posted By Rossi:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Quick question;

you have a taser but two attackers to deal with.

Now what?



If you have two attackers at the same time you can incapacitate one while dealing with the other or, if both are armed then even a firearm will not help (maybe assisted by a miracle ).

Or you do believe in Hollywood?



In other words multiple attackers mean that you can taze one and then it's hand to hand after that, and hopefully it's over with and you are gone before the tazed one gets back up.

I choose 1911 and pepperspray instead.



If the new ones are like the original Air Taser, it wil work like a stun gun once the cartridge has been fired.
Also, if it is effective on the one you hit, he won't be getting up for a while. You tase him, then drop the unit and it will continue to shock him for a while. And the company will replace the unit (for free of course) after you send them a copy of the police report showing it was self defense. Again that was their policy when there was just the Air Taser.
At first I thought you said you choose 911 and pepper spray. Somehow I missed the 1
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:41:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:

If he's worried about getting his ass beat I suggest he change his lifestyle.




You mean that he should never go to the gas station, or the book store, or the library, or the tons of places that shit does happen?

I know what you meant.

But stuff can and does happen anywhere. Otherwise, why bother carrying anything unless you were going someplace you expected trouble, and then why would you even be going there?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:36:31 PM EDT
Looked at the TASER website. It does act as a contact stun gun, even if fired first. As for the guarantee, this is what the site says:

"Reliable Protection. Lifetime Replacement Guarantee:

If you use your TASER in self-defense, we recommend that you leave it attached to your attacker, incapacitating him while you get to safety. When you fire the TASER X26C, it will deliver a 10-second energy burst. However, pull the trigger two more times, and the burst is increased to 30 seconds, giving you a window of opportunity to get to safety. You can then set down the TASER X26C, and it will keep him incapacitated while you get to safety. Send us a copy of the police report, and we will replace your unit free of charge.
Your life is worth more to us than the cost of a TASER device."

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:02:06 AM EDT
Top Top