While it is not unlawful for a person to merely possess a firearm in
public, the statute at issue does not violate one’s right to bear arms because “n the vast majority
of situations, a person of common intelligence would be able to ascertain when the carrying of a
particular weapon would reasonably warrant alarm in others.” Spencer, 75 Wn. App. at 123-24.
When determining whether the evidence is sufficient to prove unlawful display, the trier of fact
considers circumstances such as: (1) the type of neighborhood in which the weapon was carried;
(2) the time of day; (3) the urban environment; (4) the manner in which the weapon was carried;
(5) the size and type of weapon; and (6) whether the weapon had a visibly attached clip. Spencer,
75 Wn. App. at 123 n.4.
The trial court held:
Here, the Defendant was carrying a rifle only partially concealed and clearly
identifiable as a rifle to the citizen who made the call as well as law enforcement
officers, with the barrel pointing towards the ground walking on a main
thoroughfare in the City of Port Angeles in daylight hours. In fact there were two
rifles, which would likely be less alarming than the carrying of one rifle. Nothing
indicates that the manner in which the Defendant was carrying the weapons in any
way would give reasonable cause for alarm unless the mere fact of carrying a
weapon within the city limits in the open in daylight on a major thoroughfare in
and of itself would cause such alarm. The statute does not and, under the
Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public. Therefore
the Court finds that the officers at the time of the initial contact had no reasonable
articulable suspicion that any criminal activity was occurring.CP at 20 (emphasis added).
Under the Spencer factors, the facts in this case did not allow the police to detain Casad.
