• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ID requirements

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Then wouldn't the state have to allow murder on my private property? Child pornography? Heroin, coccaine?

Are murder, Heroin, cocaine, an enumerated right?

I'm not saying I disagree with you on how the state would interpret it, just is it constitutional. Our right to bear arms shall not be impaired, if you didn't want me to have my gun on your property that trumps my right, but who is the state to trump your property right of allowing me to have it on your property and to carry it in whatever way you allow me too?

Murder is also a Mala in se crime, a crime that is wrong in nature no matter where it occurs.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The Constitution of both the U/S and Washington say you have a right to CARRY a firearm..... not the right to CONCEAL it.

I personally believe that the state turning a chosen method of carrying into a "privilege" impairs your right to bear arms. I would love to be the next state to institute "constitutional carry".

My liberty loving side still questions why should the state have any say on your private property, as long as you are not causing harm to anyone else?
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.

Fixed place of business only applies to that person's fixed place of business. Otherwise the statute would have to read "Except in the person's place of abode or a (or any) fixed place of business...."

So. unless your last name is Walton, it would be illegal for you to carry a concealed pistol in Walmart without your CPL in your immediate possession.



The statute applies just as much on private property as it does on the public street. For example, it's just as illegal to shoot heroine inside your house or your neighbor's house as it is on the capitol steps. Although, because of the specific exception contained at the beginning of the statute, it is not illegal to conceal a pistol without a CPL in your own house, but it would be in your neighbor's house.

Maybe I dont fully understand the meaning of OR. I would think they would have said " or in the persons fixed place of business.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
The Constitution of both the US and Washington say you have a right to CARRY a firearm..... not the right to CONCEAL it.

That's a slippery slope right there. What if a law was passed stating that all firearms must be carried unloaded...or disassembled? If your argument is correct, then it would not be unconstitutional, since you'd still be carrying the firearm...and you could still hit someone with the frame in self-defense.

The Washington state constitution does not specify how the firearm may or shall be carried, only that carrying one is a right that shall not be impaired (actually it says arms, rather than specifying firearms).
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wow,, wow!!!

That's a slippery slope right there. What if a law was passed stating that all firearms must be carried unloaded...or disassembled? If your argument is correct, then it would not be unconstitutional, since you'd still be carrying the firearm...and you could still hit someone with the frame in self-defense.

The Washington state constitution does not specify how the firearm may or shall be carried, only that carrying one is a right that shall not be impaired (actually it says arms, rather than specifying firearms).

are we in california???

Heller affirms the right,,to bear an arm ready to use in case of confrontation!
Heller also affirms that a hand GUN is the prefered ARM to have in case of confrontation.

unloaded or dissasembled,,, for safety,,, are not what the 2nd amendment was talking about.
Heller affirms the RIGHT to be ready to defend yourself,, others and the state!


EDIT.... I see now that I am really responding to the quote in your post... Not to you.. for that I am sorry.
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Are murder, Heroin, cocaine, an enumerated right?

Everyone has the Right to life. Murder would not be ok on private property.

Agreed upon mutual combat that ended in death on private property would not be murder.

Heroin and Cocaine are not prohibited by the COTUS , so frankly each state can decide for itself if they want to outlaw substances or not. Then it can go to SCOTUS to see if it is a non-enumerated Right. If this country paid more than lip-service to the COTUS, and SCOTUS had balls, they would probably say: if you can grow coca, and make concaine on your property, then go ahead, but your state can make it illegal for you to use or transport if OFF your private property.

To me, this is simple, logical, moral, ethical and lawful thinking.
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I always laugh at these type of questions. Don't you see how you have only 3 options in response to his ID/permit request?

1. obey

2. decline and not resist

3. decline and resist with any means necessary


I'm thinking you're just trying to find out what will happen if you pick option nr. 2 so your question isn't really if you have to obey, but what will happen to you once you refuse but don't resist, right?

There should be a flow chart.

Officer:
You must give me your ID.

Free citizen:
1) Am I under arrest? If yes skip to #3, if no continue to #2.

2) Am I free to go? If yes leave. If no skip to #3 -- because it means you ARE under arrest.

3) I request the presence of my attorney. His name is ________ his number is __________. Proceed to step #4 immediately.

4) Remain silent.

Is this resistance?
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I think we think along the same lines..

Everyone has the Right to life. Murder would not be ok on private property.

Agreed upon mutual combat that ended in death on private property would not be murder.

Heroin and Cocaine are not prohibited by the COTUS , so frankly each state can decide for itself if they want to outlaw substances or not. Then it can go to SCOTUS to see if it is a non-enumerated Right. If this country paid more than lip-service to the COTUS, and SCOTUS had balls, they would probably say: if you can grow coca, and make concaine on your property, then go ahead, but your state can make it illegal for you to use or transport if OFF your private property.

To me, this is simple, logical, moral, ethical and lawful thinking.

Highlighted is a good point, how many people have died in the sport of Boxing, or other "combat" related sports etc, high school kids in football. The founders realized this and some even died in Duels (Hamilton, one of the worse founders who was more of a nationalist rather than federalist). Which also leads me to question all other restrictions that restrict what we choose to do with our bodies e.g. drugs, prostitution, etc.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
the proper grammatical interpretation of "Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business," is that the possesive adjective "person's" applies equally to both "place of abode" and "fixed place of business"

So, the apartment I rent -- or the store where I'm employed.

If you don't have to own the home, you don't have to own the business. Does that mean a company can't bar employees from carrying?
 

TheGunMan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Wenatchee, WA
WRONG again people

In Wa State when you are pulled over in a traffic stop you are legally under arrest. Weather you go to jail or not is the cops decision. As far as passangers go they are in the car and part of the crime so they are obligated to show ID. OK ask how can you be under arrest.......you were pulled over for a crime. If you did not brake the law in the first place you would not have been pulled over. (Speeding is a crime) I wish people would give the correct awnsers to quwstions as some one may do what you say and get in troule. State facts not opinions.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
let's distinguish between TRAFFIC stops and TERRY stops of a vehicle

in a traffic stop, in WA, only the person(s) suspected of committing a traffic infraction can be required to show id/identify themselves.

USUALLY, that's only the driver. if the passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt or something, then the officer could demand he ID himself as well.

in WA state, if the car is stopped for traffic only, GENERALLY speaking, all other parties present not suspected of traffic infractions may also walk away. they cannot be detained.

obviously, don't jump from the car, but ask if you can leave if you want (if you are on a freeway, obviously, the rules are different but IN GENERAL, one is free to walk away if not a subject of the traffic stop)

if the car is being stopped pursuant to TERRY, then presumably the suspicion extends to all parties in the car and they can all be detained

parties are not required to show ID during a terry in WA state.

GENERALLY SPEAKING

case law has GENERALLY supported that officers can ASK for ID/a person to identify themself at a traffic stop if not a subject (passenger etc.) but must immediately return ID after writing stuff down so as to avoid constructive arrest, etc.

officers can detain on a traffic stop for a reasonable period of time. for example, it's been held up that even if an officer is finished with the citation (let's say 5 minutes) but is still waiting for warrant checks to come back via radio, that's fine. again, assuming radio doesn't take an unreasonable period of time.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
As far as passengers go they are in the car and part of the crime so they are obligated to show ID.
According to that logic--
- then the passengers in the BigGrayDog bus are also "part of the crime" and are obligated to show ID should the bus driver exceed the speed limit.
- then the 400-someodd passengers in the Airbus A380 are a "part of the crime" and obligated to show ID should the pilot exceed any FAA regulations.

State facts not opinions.
Would that some take their own advice.
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
In Wa State when you are pulled over in a traffic stop you are legally under arrest. Weather you go to jail or not is the cops decision. As far as passangers go they are in the car and part of the crime so they are obligated to show ID. OK ask how can you be under arrest.......you were pulled over for a crime. If you did not brake the law in the first place you would not have been pulled over. (Speeding is a crime) I wish people would give the correct awnsers to quwstions as some one may do what you say and get in troule. State facts not opinions.

It's an infraction. A traffic stop is not an arrest. You agree to the terms, by obtaining a driving license.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
It's an infraction. A traffic stop is not an arrest. You agree to the terms, by obtaining a driving license.

this is a semantical wank over the meaning of "arrest",. in one respect, any restraint of liberty such that a person is not free to leave (as in a terry or traffic stop) is an "arrest"... iow an "arrest/stop of free movement"

however, it's not a CUSTODIAL arrest, it's a brief detention, and in the case of the traffic stop it is noncriminal, since we are usually dealiing with civil infractions, not crimes.

when most people say "arrest" they are referring to "custodial arrest" not "restraint of movement". the term "arrest" can mean both, but usually refers to the former

this has NOTHING to do with agreeing to the terms... traffic stops can be conducted regardless of whether you have "obtained a driver's license"

the previous poster is wrong about speeding being a crime, etc. in WA state, speeding is DECRIM'd. it is not a CRIME. it is a civil infraction.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
According to that logic--
- then the passengers in the BigGrayDog bus are also "part of the crime" and are obligated to show ID should the bus driver exceed the speed limit.
- then the 400-someodd passengers in the Airbus A380 are a "part of the crime" and obligated to show ID should the pilot exceed any FAA regulations.

yes, it is NOT the logic because the law in WA state is clear.

in a traffic stop IN WA STATE, only subject suspceted of committing infractions are required to show id (e.g. seatbelt ona passenger etc.)

period.

in fact, passengers are free to walk away from the stop

terry stops are different of course. in most terrys of a car/occupants, all parties in the car are subject to the terry stop
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
In Wa State when you are pulled over in a traffic stop you are legally under arrest. Weather you go to jail or not is the cops decision. As far as passangers go they are in the car and part of the crime so they are obligated to show ID. OK ask how can you be under arrest.......you were pulled over for a crime. If you did not brake the law in the first place you would not have been pulled over. (Speeding is a crime) I wish people would give the correct awnsers to quwstions as some one may do what you say and get in troule. State facts not opinions.

Wow, this is one of the lease accurate statements on OCDO in a long time.

A traffic stop per se is a civil infraction and not a crime. You are not under arrest but being minimally detained. The cop can not take you to jail for speeding as it is a civil infraction. (Of course there are crimes that can lead you to jail, i.e. reckless driving)

Passengers are not committing the civil infraction, they are not being detained and if asked they would be free to go.

Simply look at the next ticket you get from the officer, it will read "Infraction" and then a box for traffic or non-traffic.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Wow, this is one of the lease accurate statements on OCDO in a long time.

A traffic stop per se is a civil infraction and not a crime. You are not under arrest but being minimally detained. The cop can not take you to jail for speeding as it is a civil infraction. (Of course there are crimes that can lead you to jail, i.e. reckless driving)

Passengers are not committing the civil infraction, they are not being detained and if asked they would be free to go.

Simply look at the next ticket you get from the officer, it will read "Infraction" and then a box for traffic or non-traffic.

note also IN SOME STATES, cops can detain everybody in the car for the extent of the stop even if only the driver is suspected of an infraction

WA differs because we have a more rights-respecting constitution than the federal version
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
note also IN SOME STATES, cops can detain everybody in the car for the extent of the stop even if only the driver is suspected of an infraction

WA differs because we have a more rights-respecting constitution than the federal version

Well in the former Soviet Union....

And in China...

Well, we're in WASHINGTON. So what happens in CA, TX, NY, etc. just doesn't matter.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Well in the former Soviet Union....

And in China...

Well, we're in WASHINGTON. So what happens in CA, TX, NY, etc. just doesn't matter.

wow, thanks for the TIP!

for those of us interested in comparative law and the benefits of being in WA state, it DOES matter

you can choose to remain ignorant , though. i'm totally kewl with that. knock yerself out
 
Top