Tucker6900
Regular Member
This should be a tragic reminder to all of us on the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
This should be a tragic reminder to all of us on the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
... In the second case, the LEO was exempt from that law due to his "government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training", RCW 9.41.060...
And here's what is interesting about that (well the last two anyway). The third case, the guy violated RCW 9.41.050 and can be prosecuted for leaving the gun unattended in the vehicle. In the second case, the LEO was exempt from that law due to his "government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training", RCW 9.41.060. Because of their "government-sponsered law enforcement firearms training", LEO's are exempt from criminal prosecution, at least under RCW 9.41.050, in this case even though they should be the ones who know better while Joe Citizen can be prosecuted.
And here's what is interesting about that (well the last two anyway). The third case, the guy violated RCW 9.41.050 and can be prosecuted for leaving the gun unattended in the vehicle. In the second case, the LEO was exempt from that law due to his "government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training", RCW 9.41.060. Because of their "government-sponsered law enforcement firearms training", LEO's are exempt from criminal prosecution, at least under RCW 9.41.050, in this case even though they should be the ones who know better while Joe Citizen can be prosecuted.
To be fair, you are assuming he violated 9.41.050. We do not have (at least from this story) enough information to make that determination. The law does not state you can not "leave the pistol unattended in a vehicle" it states that if the CPL holder is not in the vehicle then the pistol must be locked within the vehicle. If the doors of the car were locked then there was no violation.
To be fair, you are assuming he violated 9.41.050. We do not have (at least from this story) enough information to make that determination. The law does not state you can not "leave the pistol unattended in a vehicle" it states that if the CPL holder is not in the vehicle then the pistol must be locked within the vehicle. If the doors of the car were locked then there was no violation.
entirely correct. i was about to point this out and you beat me to it.
You both are free to read 9.41.050 in the purest, mindless, word parsing, of thoughtless, negligent, laywers!!! yea, I am dissing you both!
My CPL empowers me to place my loaded gun in the lap of a kid in my car, cover it with a towel,
then lock the kid, the gun, and the towel, in the car!!
Now we see that i am not unlawfull,,, Its that darned KID thats breaking the law!!! He doesnt have a CPL!!!
That kid needs to be taught a lesson!!!
Would you not agree that the clear purpose of the locking and concealment requirement in 9.41.050 is to prevent the gun from being obtained by prohibited persons or getting stolen? In both of these cases, two prohibited persons, the children, were inside the vehicle when the gun was left in there. There was NO LOCK between the children and the guns. So, how can we possibly say that 9.41.050 was not violated when there was NO LOCK between the prohibited persons and the guns? AND, on top of that, the children could certainly have obtained the gun, unlocked the doors, and left with the guns. How can that possibly be construed, by any stretch of the imagination that 9.41.050 was complied with and the guns were locked inside the vehicle, even if the doors were locked when the CPL holder left?
That's like having a gun safe with an emergency exit handle, and locking a felon inside the safe with your guns and claiming that you did not provide the guns to the felon because they were locked in the safe.
Yes, I misspoke in my post above. The requirement in 9.41.050 is for guns to be locked in a vehicle concealed from view if the CPL holder leaves the loaded handgun in the vehicle. Since there was no lock between the prohibited persons (and even if the non-CPL holder was not a prohibited person), clearly 9.41.050 was not met.
More young children die from neglectful use of 5 gallon buckets than from guns.
Would you not agree that the clear purpose of the locking and concealment requirement in 9.41.050 is to prevent the gun from being obtained by prohibited persons or getting stolen? In both of these cases, two prohibited persons, the children, were inside the vehicle when the gun was left in there. There was NO LOCK between the children and the guns. So, how can we possibly say that 9.41.050 was not violated when there was NO LOCK between the prohibited persons and the guns? AND, on top of that, the children could certainly have obtained the gun, unlocked the doors, and left with the guns. How can that possibly be construed, by any stretch of the imagination that 9.41.050 was complied with and the guns were locked inside the vehicle, even if the doors were locked when the CPL holder left?
That's like having a gun safe with an emergency exit handle, and locking a felon inside the safe with your guns and claiming that you did not provide the guns to the felon because they were locked in the safe.
Yes, I misspoke in my post above. The requirement in 9.41.050 is for guns to be locked in a vehicle concealed from view if the CPL holder leaves the loaded handgun in the vehicle. Since there was no lock between the prohibited persons (and even if the non-CPL holder was not a prohibited person), clearly 9.41.050 was not met.
"(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."
Please stick to facts which are true. There are enough of them to make our case without resorting to falsehoods.
Here are a couple of links to back up my assertion that negligent use of 5 gallon buckets kill more young children than negligent use of firearms do:
http://gunsafe.org/position statements/Guns and crime.htm
The above gives the latest accidental death number for children under 5 as 17.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/Fire/Swimming_Pool_Safety/
The above lists the number of children drowned in five gallon buckets as "approximately 40". I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of them are under the age of five.
So, why did you think I was lying?
CDC said:Fatal firearms accidents age 0-5...17
I don't think you're lying, I think you're (probably) mistaken. Although upon further research it seems the numbers are closer than I was aware.
The CDC claims 17 per year, accidental, age 0-5:
As for drowning, it seems that the "30-50" deaths per year figure comes from this study, which claims 160 drownings between the years 1984-1989. 160 drownings / 5 years = 32 drownings per year.
On the other hand, it seems like the issue has improved in years since (maybe due to awareness of the possibility).
According to this 2004 fact sheet -- which incidentally still claims the "30 per year" figure, no doubt a reflection of the tendency of such things to exaggerate their own importance -- the tally since 1984 is only 327. 327 drownings / 20 years = 16.35 drownings / year.
I'm not going to quote other sources for firearms deaths due to suspected bias there as well, but suffice it to say that the CDC is the lowest number for children in that age range.
And that's forgetting the fact that the drowning-in-buckets risks decreases to almost nothing once a child is about 8 or so (my guess, because nobody bothers to keep statistics for that), whereas, even if you carefully discount homicides and whatnot, there are still unintentional firearm deaths that occur, well, even into adulthood. The risk is always present.
Let's face it: guns are dangerous. That's kind of the point.
Anyway, it's difficult to agree that either risk is more significant than the other. I think it's more accurate to say that they are both near the noise floor.