slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
That is not the correct interpretation. The Or at the beginning of your quote is conjoining the previous statement that you selectively left out, hopefully not to make your point.
Including the whole sentence.
-
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.
-
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.
Photo ID with a CPL to OC on a bus?
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
That is not the correct interpretation. The Or at the beginning of your quote is conjoining the previous statement that you selectively left out, hopefully not to make your point.
Including the whole sentence.
deanf
Regular Member
I disagree. If yours was the intended meaning, why mention police officers at all?
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Thank you for point this out.
I guess that begs the next questions then. When would we be required to do so?
Who would be the any other person?
The traffic stop seems like it MIGHT be a reasonable time to a peace officer.
Who else? When else?
What constitutes 'display' for the purpose of this statute?
I think that simply showing it to an officer not handing it over would be a display.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Why have a qualifier at all then , why not just leave it at we must show cops our CPL when asked?
And I have talked to lawyers about this, they don't believe it is a blanket authorization to violate our feeling secure in our persons, papers, or effects.........there still has to be PC or RS.
kparker
Regular Member
Yes, and it's a plausible interpretation, for sure.
But, if you can't tell that that particular section is poorly written and ambiguous, then your reading skills aren't quite as good as you think.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
deanf is correct in his reading of the RCW.
Emphasis added for clarity...
The requirement of have a concealed pistol license on your person when required to have a CPL ie automobile with a loaded handgun (exception for legal outdoor activities) and then it comes to who can require to inspect your CPL, the first being a Police Officer when demanded OR to any person when required by law to do so. NOTE THE OR it separates the two.
In RCW 9.41.050 allows an officer to request your CPL when they suspect or know you are carrying and in an area where a CPL is required or they have RAS or PC to believe you are carrying concealed.
If you are open carrying on public transportation and an officer observes this, they can legally demand to see your CPL.
Emphasis added for clarity...
The requirement of have a concealed pistol license on your person when required to have a CPL ie automobile with a loaded handgun (exception for legal outdoor activities) and then it comes to who can require to inspect your CPL, the first being a Police Officer when demanded OR to any person when required by law to do so. NOTE THE OR it separates the two.
In RCW 9.41.050 allows an officer to request your CPL when they suspect or know you are carrying and in an area where a CPL is required or they have RAS or PC to believe you are carrying concealed.
If you are open carrying on public transportation and an officer observes this, they can legally demand to see your CPL.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Good question about requirements to showing our CPL to, as to who is any other person when and if required by law to do so.
Besides law enforcement, what comes to mind is security officers (not police officers) at the court houses if you are concealed carrying and securing your weapon.
Judge or Court Commissioner.
How about openly carrying on a bus or ferry? Would one of their drivers or stewards be covered by this? Likely they do not know either.
Would security at a Stadium where the city has an ordinance restricting to carry a handgun with an exception with those with a CPL? The reason I bring this up as it is covered by law.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
slapmonkey said:
By adding your emphasis [STOP]'s in different places does not make it read correctly no matter how much it would restrict government powers.
Or separates the two descriptions of Police Officer and Any Other Person when and if required by law to do so.
If it had been similar to this "police officer or any other person, when and if required by law to do so." I would agree with your version.
slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
Lets for a second remove the stuff between the 'and' and the 'or', the sentance no longer makes sence. Typically, in the scenario your using an English sentence would still make sense.
If you use my example, it still makes sense and is a complete statement.
OR
Of course, one could say that using proper english is could still say the below, but to me this seems less likely however that's my opinion.
In any case, the officer still needs to have RAS to stop you and your not required by the section to have your CPL on you to simply open carry. I am not an English major, so I may be wrong but I don't think ill ever need to find out.
Last edited:
slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
Personally, I feel the or is a grouping for the previous item (In this case, a group of people) and the next item (a group of people) in the sentence.
By removing the grouping or a single item in the grouping, the sentence is still complete.
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Slapmonkey one cannot remove the wording or punctuation to the law.
Lets say you were brought up on charges and then while in court they changed the meaning to the written law by removing a couple of words or adding one here and playing with the punctuation which did not not fall into your favor, would you still agree with what they did? No I would think not.
Do you really think a Judge is doing to sit there and argue the rewording of the law?
We do ourselves an injustice when we read to understand the law with preconceived ideas and we do ourselves justice when we see injustices and seek to change it. For the time being it is what it says, if an officer demands to see your CPL when you are carrying in exempted area requiring a CPL then provide it.
Definition of Or;
a. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
b. Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether: Your answer is either ingenious or wrong. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Definition of And;
1. Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function in a construction.
2. Added to; plus: Two and two makes four.
Lets say you were brought up on charges and then while in court they changed the meaning to the written law by removing a couple of words or adding one here and playing with the punctuation which did not not fall into your favor, would you still agree with what they did? No I would think not.
Do you really think a Judge is doing to sit there and argue the rewording of the law?
We do ourselves an injustice when we read to understand the law with preconceived ideas and we do ourselves justice when we see injustices and seek to change it. For the time being it is what it says, if an officer demands to see your CPL when you are carrying in exempted area requiring a CPL then provide it.
Definition of Or;
a. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
b. Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether: Your answer is either ingenious or wrong. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Definition of And;
1. Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function in a construction.
2. Added to; plus: Two and two makes four.
slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
Personally, I feel I am normally open minded when it comes to reading laws. I am not trying to remove the words to accommodate my argument but to apply or highlight what I believe of the English language. I am not trying to stand here and say, this is how it should be. The point I was trying to make was that a sentence must still formulate a complete sentence when one of the conditions of the or are removed, otherwise I think your grouping of the or is incorrect.
The part we are getting hung up on is the scope of the 'or', not what my preconceived thoughts or desires on the subject are.
With that's said, I don't know everything about the English language. If you say your major is the English language and I don't know diddly-squat about how to formulate a sentence then so be it, I might be wrong. Currently, I still feel my application is plausible.
The part we are getting hung up on is the scope of the 'or', not what my preconceived thoughts or desires on the subject are.
With that's said, I don't know everything about the English language. If you say your major is the English language and I don't know diddly-squat about how to formulate a sentence then so be it, I might be wrong. Currently, I still feel my application is plausible.
DeltaOps
Regular Member
In mhy experience with not just Laws of our state but also Army regulations, some people try to read to far into it. The topic is pretty simple. A LEO told another law abiding American that he had to have a state issued photo ID on him while he OC'ed on a bus. As we know, we do not have to have a state issued photo ID to simply walk around OC'ing.
However, getting off topic and on to what others seem to be debating. Is it plausable that a LEO could ask for a CPL if they see you OC'ing on a City bus. The answer, YES it could happen and well within the LEOs rights to do so. One cannot simply carry a loaded pistol on a cuty bus without a valid CPL. ( I do not need to site the RCW as I am sure we all know by now what it is, so the cite police can stay dormant for now). So with that statement, it is required by law that we have to have in possesion, a valid CPL while OC'ing or CC'ing a loaded pistol on a city bus and therefore if a LEO asks to see such CPL, one would have to show it. It is pretty simple and straight forward.
However, getting off topic and on to what others seem to be debating. Is it plausable that a LEO could ask for a CPL if they see you OC'ing on a City bus. The answer, YES it could happen and well within the LEOs rights to do so. One cannot simply carry a loaded pistol on a cuty bus without a valid CPL. ( I do not need to site the RCW as I am sure we all know by now what it is, so the cite police can stay dormant for now). So with that statement, it is required by law that we have to have in possesion, a valid CPL while OC'ing or CC'ing a loaded pistol on a city bus and therefore if a LEO asks to see such CPL, one would have to show it. It is pretty simple and straight forward.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
The RCW you are seeking is the same one we have been talking about just a different section of it.
slapmonkay I hope you do not feel I am picking you out of the bunch it just happen to be the best example to express my opinion on the subject.
I aint no english mayjor, heck last week I couldn't even spelled it :lol: though the basic definitions of And is to include more then the one and Or is giving a choice of so by removing "and", and "or" is removing the meaning, example; would you like salt Or pepper? or would you like salt And pepper?
What concerns me more is that we have others that have not formed opinions or even read the laws and taking what we say here to heart and as they go about end up spreading misinformed information or possibly placing themselves into financial difficulties if ever cited for it.
How many times have we heard, if you shoot someone make sure you pull them inside if they fall outside?
Recently I have see someone posting on a newspaper about a State Rep in Spokane was cited of a loaded firearm in his vehicle while his CPL was expired and that is why he opened carry when he drove? and went on to say he leaves his magazine in his gun as that was unloaded, really!
I have had others tell me to carry a firearm in a car you had to have the gun in the glove box and ammo in the trunk! mind you they live here in Yakima!
I am sure we could have a thread that ran for miles on over peoples misconception of gun laws that had no basis.
Everyone needs to read and understand the laws as it is their choice to act or not.
Last edited:
tombrewster421
Regular Member
According to the definition of "or" the end of the sentence where it says "when legally required to do so" applies to the police officer as well because police officer is not preceded by the word "either." That being said, OCing on a bus would meet that legal requirement unless you meet one of the exceptions. The exceptions are up to you to prove though, not the officer. I do not believe you would be legally required to present a CPL to an officer if you were just walking down the street OCing. They can't just demand to see your CPL when one is not required.
We need to remember the qualifier of the whole reason that an officer can demand a CPL is in the beginning of the sentence where it says "Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license." if you're not required to have one, it can't be demanded from anyone.
IANAL just my understanding of the English language.
Last edited:
DeltaOps
Regular Member
hermannr
Regular Member
And and or or,,,does not matter...if you are doing nothing that the officer can show he has a reasonable suspicion that you ARE doing something illegal...he has no reason to contact you at all, and therefore has no reason to ask for a CPL OR a "government photo ID"
Carry is not an illegal activity, and your carry, openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, even in a place that the law require a CPL to be with a loaded weapon...is not reason IN AND OF ITSELF to raise a reasonable suspicion, there has to be something else. For an officer to walk up to me and DEMAND my CPL when I am just waiting for a bus? No sir, he does not have that power.
You don't think so? Well, you are required to have in your immediate possession a license to operate a motor vehicle...and you are required to show it on request if you have been stopped while driving a vehicle...BUT, there has to be something else going on BEFORE it is legal for LE to shop you and check that license...that has been through the courts several times.
Your carry and your CPL are the same, and different at the same time, in that it is NEVER proper to operate a motor vehicle without a DL, whereas, it MAY be legal to even conceal without a CPL, even on a public conveyance.
Freedom1man: May I ask? Are you a member of a "recognized minority?". If so you can double wammy that officer and juristiction.
Carry is not an illegal activity, and your carry, openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, even in a place that the law require a CPL to be with a loaded weapon...is not reason IN AND OF ITSELF to raise a reasonable suspicion, there has to be something else. For an officer to walk up to me and DEMAND my CPL when I am just waiting for a bus? No sir, he does not have that power.
You don't think so? Well, you are required to have in your immediate possession a license to operate a motor vehicle...and you are required to show it on request if you have been stopped while driving a vehicle...BUT, there has to be something else going on BEFORE it is legal for LE to shop you and check that license...that has been through the courts several times.
Your carry and your CPL are the same, and different at the same time, in that it is NEVER proper to operate a motor vehicle without a DL, whereas, it MAY be legal to even conceal without a CPL, even on a public conveyance.
Freedom1man: May I ask? Are you a member of a "recognized minority?". If so you can double wammy that officer and juristiction.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Only if that minority is white, heterosexual, male.
The debate while interesting has gone a little OT.
The question was about having to carry government issued photo ID with a CPL. I know a CPL is required to OC while riding a bus. Except when 9.41.060 applies.
I can't even find a requirement to have photo ID to get a CPL. So my thoughts are no, not required.
The other issue is how is 'display' defined?
The law says you must DISPLAY a CPL when required, nothing about handing it over to anyone. A display is a showing in my book. I would not have to release it/hand it over to display it.
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
One does not need a state issued ID or Drivers License unless you are participating in activities as driving.
When required to show your CPL which has your drivers license number on it, DOB, Height, Weight Hair and Eye Color and your address, everything your drivers license has on it except for the photo portion.
As to trying to sell RCW 9.41.060 when riding a bus, good luck on that one.
For those who say some of the wording in the law does not matter or those who feel they are not required to show a cpl to an officer when in an area that requires it, step up let us know how it went.
Now coming up with the concept that the wording of "Or" or "And" in the law does not mean anything, priceless! :lol:
This thread is a fertile area for misinformation.
DeltaOps
Regular Member
I take it you never read the thread, just read what you wanted and or interpreted it the wrong way. Never once was anyone talking about a LEO asking for a CPL while waiting for the bus.
Now to get down to the nitty gritty. Technically, if you step onto a city bus while OC'ing, the driver could ask you if your weapon is loaded and if it was he could ask you to display your CPL. Same thing for me, if you get into my car and you are OC'ing, first thing I am asking is if it is loaded and if so, do you have your CPL? If not I would ask you too kindly unload your pistol. People break the law every day, wiether it be buy driving without a license or whatever, but if someone has the chance to not allow another to break the law, then they should do so and really have the right to do so. So if a LEO seen me standing at a bus stop while OC'ing, and then he waited for me to get on the bus, he could THEN ask you for your CPL. How many people do you know who OC out on the streets and the pistol is not loaded? Also, every gun should be treated like it is loaded for safety. YES we all know what assuming does, but in the end, if you step onto a city bus and the proper authority asks to see your CPL, YOU HAVE to display it.