Concealed weapon over 6' in length

[Lancastrian]

I'm sure this is a UL, but the mental image it creates amuses me so I have to ask: has anyone else heard that there's a law in Washington State prohibiting the ownership of a concealed weapon over six feet in length?

I've looked in the appropriate place on the state website, but length wasn't mentioned.

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by Lancastrian

I've looked in the appropriate place on the state website, but length wasn't mentioned.

Can you be more specific as to where you looked and how you searched?

Seaboe

ETA: This is not something I've heard of (3 yrs Law School in the state, 16 years in the legal industry in the state), but given that it was once illegal in the city of Seattle to wear a hat pin longer than 6", I'm not taking bets.

[Bryan With a 'Y']

Originally Posted by Lancastrian

I'm sure this is a UL, but the mental image it creates amuses me so I have to ask: has anyone else heard that there's a law in Washington State prohibiting the ownership of a concealed weapon over six feet in length?

I've looked in the appropriate place on the state website, but length wasn't mentioned.

Pretty sure it's a UL - I like the version I've heard even better, which was that it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Seattle (I'm pretty sure they said Seattle specifically) that's under six feet in length

[rhiandmoi]

Seattle Municipal Codes

A. "Dangerous knife" means any fixed-blade knife and any other knife having a blade more than three and one-half inches (3 1/2") in length.

B. "Fixed-blade knife" means any knife, regardless of blade length, with a blade which is permanently open and does not fold, retract or slide into the handle of the knife, and includes any dagger, sword, bayonet, bolo knife, hatchet, axe, straight-edged razor, or razor blade not in a package, dispenser or shaving appliance.

C. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

It is unlawful for a person knowingly to:

...snip

B. Carry concealed or unconcealed on his or her person any dangerous knife, or carry concealed on his or her person any deadly weapon other than a firearm;

[Eddylizard]

It is unlawful for a person knowingly to:

...snip

B. Carry concealed or unconcealed on his or her person any dangerous knife, or carry concealed on his or her person any deadly weapon other than a firearm;

Is it me or is this clause nonsense.

We absolutely concur with your right to carry something with which to kill another person, but we will specify the manner of their death. So no knives, swords, sickles, razors, pitchforks or pointy sticks. But a gun is okay.

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Is it me or is this clause nonsense.

We absolutely concur with your right to carry something with which to kill another person, but we will specify the manner of their death. So no knives, swords, sickles, razors, pitchforks or pointy sticks. But a gun is okay.

But it's every Americans right to bear arms (or is that arm bears I can never remember) and woe betide anyone trying to approach this one with logic in the USA.

[Lancastrian]

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

Can you be more specific as to where you looked and how you searched?

Seaboe

I looked here, mainly.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconceal.html

[NeeCD]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Is it me or is this clause nonsense.

We absolutely concur with your right to carry something with which to kill another person, but we will specify the manner of their death. So no knives, swords, sickles, razors, pitchforks or pointy sticks. But a gun is okay.

I would guess that it's because you can get a permit to carry a concealed gun, but there is no concealed dangerous knife permit. It is just a guess, but that's the only way that statement makes sense to me.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Lancastrian

I looked here, mainly.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconceal.html

That site pertains to requirements regarding carrying a concealed pistol.

If anyone's made a six foot long pistol I'd love to see it. I'd also love to see them try to use it. Or conceal it.

Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you getting ready to perform a levitation trick?

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by NeeCD

I would guess that it's because you can get a permit to carry a concealed gun, but there is no concealed dangerous knife permit. It is just a guess, but that's the only way that statement makes sense to me.

But if you have the right to bear and carry arms, doen't that extemd to all arms. Knives, swords, spears are all arms, along with the agricultural implements I mentioned if carried for offensive/defensive purposes or even a heavy rock. It's got to be all or nothing surely.

[Lancastrian]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

That site pertains to requirements regarding carrying a concealed pistol.

I realize, but if you click around that's the only concealed-carry information they have on their weapons regulation area of their site. No other forms of firearms are mentioned.

[geminilee]

Unless you are really tall, how would you carry any weapon over 6 feet long and manage to conceal it? Even if it is illegal, I doubt it comes up much.

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

But if you have the right to bear and carry arms, doesn't that extend to all arms?

There's your error. No, it doesn't extend to all arms and it's not absolute.

Seaboe

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by Lancastrian

I'm sure this is a UL, but the mental image it creates amuses me so I have to ask: has anyone else heard that there's a law in Washington State prohibiting the ownership of a concealed weapon over six feet in length?

I've looked in the appropriate place on the state website, but length wasn't mentioned.

I believe this is playing off the fact that state law provides for concealed pistol permits, but not (apparently) concealed rifle permits.

The logic would be that if you have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and the law only provides for concealed pistol permits, and pistols are hand guns (thus small), then you cannot carry a large concealed weapon.

The law concerning concealed pistol permits is RCW 9.41.070.

Seaboe

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

There's your error. No, it doesn't extend to all arms and it's not absolute.

Seaboe

So help me out here.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

My error I thought it said carry arms when it actually says keep arms.

It doesn't specify firearms - it says arms. Which in my book means anything from a sharp stick to a howitzer. So on one hand we have people jumping up and down protesting that gun control is unconstitutional, waving the second amendment around, but banning knives sticks and howitzers is not apparently.

So if you can ban one, why not the other? If the government or state can pick and choose which sorts of arms "the People" can keep and bear, why not say "you can have a pointy stick, but not a gun"?

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

So help me out here.

Sorry, I'm not willing to take the time to debate the second amendment and precisely what it means.

I do know, however, that SCOTUS* has declared certain restrictions to be permissable. I don't have the cites at hand; any pro- or anti- gun control site probably lists at least some.

Seaboe

*Supreme Court of the United States.

[Eddylizard]

Yes I know what the acronym SCOTUS means, and that they have outlawed certain types of arms. My point is if they can screw around with the precious constitution to suit their desires, why can't they play around with it some more?

[erwins]

Not jumping into the whole 2nd Amendment debate either, but when you interpret this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Some of the key things that have to be defined are:

* what is a "well-regulated militia"?
* what is meant by "arms" in this context?
* of what significance is the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State"?

Basically all of the arguments about the 2nd Amendment have to do with this, and with the issue of whether states have greater leeway than Congress to regulate in this area. (Or, how much more).

Generally, the term "arms" has meant the kind of weapon that an individual was likely to own at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, and of the type that could be used in a militia. When you get more specific than that, it gets messier.

Hope that helps.

erwins

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Yes I know what the acronym SCOTUS means, and that they have outlawed certain types of arms. My point is if they can screw around with the precious constitution to suit their desires, why can't they play around with it some more?

Because, whether g-you agree or not (or believe it or not), they perceive themselves to be operating within a set of restrictions by which they are bound.

And, in any case, the OP wasn't talking about federal law anyway.

Seaboe

[Dog Friendly]

"Raspberries! We haven't done raspberries!"

Dog (No points, it's too easy) Friendly