Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: 9.41.050 and 9.41.060 discussion

  1. #1
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593

    9.41.050 and 9.41.060 discussion

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZS.html Terry v. Ohio

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-suprem...t/1329012.html State v. Duncan

    http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/up...828521_opn.pdf State v. Doughty

    I decided to start a new thread on this, since, the other thread, has a consensual encounter providing a second fact for the LEO to use for his later actions and the demanding a Drivers License in addition to the CPL has gotten lost, which does deserve it's own thread, but I think no one here agrees the LEO was justified in his second demand.

    If the citizen declines a consensual encounter it is my position that the LEO lacks enough facts under our State Constitution to compel an answer or to search or seize you to develop further facts. This would I suppose make the .050 law repealed by case law, since neither the "civil" infraction nor the "misdemeanor" can generate enough RAS or PC in isolation.

    Fact he has a firearm.
    Fact he gets on a bus, his car, the WSF, or whatever other vehicle you wish to use.

    Based on reading the above cases from the US and the State Supreme Courts, the LEO does not have enough articuable facts to proceed.

    So how does the LEO make his case that a misdeamenor is in progress in front of him, there are multiple methods that it is not a misdeamenor, just as there are multiple reasons why the activities in Duncan and Doughty were found to be unreasonabe.

  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Clearly there are a hand full that are either unable to do not acknowledge States ability to create law and the law stands until the legislature acts upon it or the States Higher Courts act upon it.

    The legislature gave the authority to law enforcement to demand a CPL when

    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.

    (b) 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 and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

    (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.

    (b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
    The Legislature provided for exceptions in RCW 9.41.060 and upon the encounter to determine if one has a CPL and if not then if 060 applies to the individual.

    If someone was cited, is found guilty and willing to invest time and money into seeing it through the appeal process or to get the legislature to change that portion of law then great but until then we are required to show a cpl if requested by an officer where it is required to have one or fall into one of the exceptions.

    Gogodawgs if you feel "RCW 9.41.060(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;" then do you leave your CPL at home all the time and do not unload your firearm when you get into your vehicle? or Do the employees of the store you work at presently follow suit?
    If you are vested into this thought process then you nor your employees should never need or carry a cpl.
    Last edited by BigDave; 08-05-2012 at 05:00 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    The LEO lacks enough facts to allow more than a consensual encounter, since our Supreme Court doesn't allow "investigatory detention" for a "civil infraction".

    "Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable in violation of state and federal constitutional rights.   However, the United States Supreme Court and this court have recognized a few carefully drawn exceptions when a limited stop may be permissible.   To stop and detain Duncan, the officers needed a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was about to occur.   Possessing or consuming alcohol in public is not a crime and we decline to extend the Terry stop exception to include nontraffic civil infractions.   The officers may also have possessed grounds to stop and detain Duncan if the civil infraction either occurred in their presence or they had filed a statement with the court that they had a reasonable basis upon which to believe that a civil infraction had been committed.   Duncan did not have actual or constructive possession of the bottle, thus the infraction did not occur in their presence.   No statement was filed with the court.

    We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's decision." State v. Duncan.

    Unless the LEO has a factual basis for the firearm is loaded, how does he write a valid .050 civil ticket or arrest you for a misdemeanor. State v. Doughty has multiple "facts" that do not add up to RAS or PC in regards to otherwise lawful actions.

    "In contrast, here Bishop relied only on his own incomplete observations. There
    was no informant’s tip (which was the element we found most persuasive in Kennedy,
    id. at 6-8) and no furtive movement. Bishop merely saw Doughty approach and leave
    a suspected drug house at 3:20 a.m. Bishop had no idea what, if anything, Doughty
    did at the house. The totality of these circumstances does not warrant intrusion into
    Doughty’s private affairs" State v. Doughty

    Explain how the fact the firearm is loaded is determined by any factual basis.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    The LEO lacks enough facts to allow more than a consensual encounter, since our Supreme Court doesn't allow "investigatory detention" for a "civil infraction".

    "Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable in violation of state and federal constitutional rights.   However, the United States Supreme Court and this court have recognized a few carefully drawn exceptions when a limited stop may be permissible.   To stop and detain Duncan, the officers needed a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was about to occur.   Possessing or consuming alcohol in public is not a crime and we decline to extend the Terry stop exception to include nontraffic civil infractions.   The officers may also have possessed grounds to stop and detain Duncan if the civil infraction either occurred in their presence or they had filed a statement with the court that they had a reasonable basis upon which to believe that a civil infraction had been committed.   Duncan did not have actual or constructive possession of the bottle, thus the infraction did not occur in their presence.   No statement was filed with the court.

    We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's decision." State v. Duncan.

    Unless the LEO has a factual basis for the firearm is loaded, how does he write a valid .050 civil ticket or arrest you for a misdemeanor. State v. Doughty has multiple "facts" that do not add up to RAS or PC in regards to otherwise lawful actions.

    "In contrast, here Bishop relied only on his own incomplete observations. There
    was no informant’s tip (which was the element we found most persuasive in Kennedy,
    id. at 6-8) and no furtive movement. Bishop merely saw Doughty approach and leave
    a suspected drug house at 3:20 a.m. Bishop had no idea what, if anything, Doughty
    did at the house. The totality of these circumstances does not warrant intrusion into
    Doughty’s private affairs" State v. Doughty

    Explain how the fact the firearm is loaded is determined by any factual basis.
    It has been addressed and explained in this thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...to-OC-on-a-bus

    All this thread is a repeat of another.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    actually Dave I split this off since the issue of the demand for a driver's license got lost in the discussion of this topic, but feel free to stay or go, everyone's opinion is welcome.

    Oh, I have yet to have anyone state the factual basis for the firearm being loaded from the LEOs vantage point, without consensual information from the carrier or some violation of his person and property. The LEOs opinion is not sufficient in my readings of the cited decisions by the WA Supreme Court. I do agree someone may need to take a stand on it to get it set in stone, since none of the cases I can find specifdically deal with this issue.
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 08-05-2012 at 06:36 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Real life happened...about 25 years ago...to me.

    We were hunting above Lake Chelan and had gone down to Manson for supplies. (6" Colt revolver in a hunting holster, impossible to tell if it was loaded from the outside (it was))

    While in the grocery store, some lady called in to 911 that there was a MWAG in the grocery store. I have no idea of her relation to the store if any. No one had said anything to me in the store. remember 25 years ago cell phones were not that common, I assumed she used a store phone or a pay phone.

    I was loading the supplies we purchased into the camper when the Chelan Co Deputy Sheriff arrived to investigate this MWAG call... He drives in, no lights, no siren, gets out of his Sheriff's SUV and walks over to our camper. Sheriff's Deputy asks: "Hunting?" (remember, Exemption RCW 9.41.060(8)) Me: "yep". That was the total and complete conversation. Completely consensual encounter, very properly handled. Deputy answered his question and the Deputy did not need to go any farther, and did not.

    This is a perfect example of "presumed innocence"

    If the encounter began by a demand for ID, the encounter would not have been consensual, because if he had demanded ID, I would have answered "Am I being detained?" No, ?have a good day". Yes, "why am I being detained"? Probably followed by please contact you supervisor, I have nothing to say to you.
    Last edited by hermannr; 08-05-2012 at 07:00 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Slightly different topic than what I was stating about RAS on the other thread.

    But I agree with your assessment Vitaeus.

    I like to substitute verbs and nouns in sentences sometimes to think about the meaning.

    (b) 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 and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

    becomes.....


    (b) Every hungry person shall have his or her money in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have money and shall give the same upon demand to any grocer or to any other person selling food when and if they desire to eat.

    To me the qualifier obviously applies to both the grocer and the person selling food. So no cops just cant demand to see your CPL at anytime but can they demand it when you are on a bus, and open carrying?

    I agree with your assessment.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-05-2012 at 07:08 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    1: I walk up to my car, with keys in hand and I'm within line of sight of a LEO... Does he have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my driver's license or for that matter, proof of insurance and registration?

    2: I'm standing at a bus transet center waiting for a bus iwh a handgun on my hip. Does the officer standing near by have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my consealed weapon permit and ID?

    With both examples, each activity is illegal without the proper permits/licenses.

    It's already an established fact that any washington state LEO cannot even ask to see your driver's license without Probable Cause or Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion. What makes this any different then the 2nd example?
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 08-05-2012 at 07:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member ARADCOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW Washington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    317

    Smile

    I copied this from the forum earlier this year because I thought it was interesting and it appears to be relevant to this discussion, so I'll post it.

    Originally Posted by eye95

    In GA, a person was observed putting his gun on. He then entered a train. The officer that observed the holstering stopped the carrier and demanded his CPL. The court ruled that the stop and the demand were lawful because having the CPL was a defense to the charge of carrying on a train, and not an element of the crime. Therefore the LEO, knowing the carrier was carrying, had knowledge of all the elements of the crime and had RAS. The carrier could defend himself against the suspicion by producing the license. Had he chosen not to produce the license, the officer would have arrested him. Producing the license at the trial would result in acquittal.

    If the law had been written in a way such that not having the license was an element of the crime, then, until the officer had reason to believe the carrier had no license, he (ironically) could not demand it.

    Very interesting. So what about this Washington law:

    (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.

    The way I read it, not having a CPL is an element of the crime regarding carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, person open carrying, which requires no license in Washington, gets into a vehicle... I see no RAS for the officer to stop the person at that point only for the reason of verifying they have a CPL, unless there was actual reason to believe the person did not have a CPL. Correct?

  10. #10
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Clearly there are a hand full that are either unable to do not acknowledge States ability to create law and the law stands until the legislature acts upon it or the States Higher Courts act upon it.

    The legislature gave the authority to law enforcement to demand a CPL when



    The Legislature provided for exceptions in RCW 9.41.060 and upon the encounter to determine if one has a CPL and if not then if 060 applies to the individual.

    If someone was cited, is found guilty and willing to invest time and money into seeing it through the appeal process or to get the legislature to change that portion of law then great but until then we are required to show a cpl if requested by an officer where it is required to have one or fall into one of the exceptions.

    Gogodawgs if you feel "RCW 9.41.060(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;" then do you leave your CPL at home all the time and do not unload your firearm when you get into your vehicle? or Do the employees of the store you work at presently follow suit?
    If you are vested into this thought process then you nor your employees should never need or carry a cpl.
    Along the lines of what I was thinking as well. Should anyone encounter a LEO while OCing in a vehicle or bus and he asks for a cpl, go ahead and stay silent. Go ahead and refuse to answer a simple question. Is your weapon loaded? or Do you have a CPL? Lets see how far that will get you. People on here are all law abiding citizens but some seem to want to push the limits. Only thing that does is put a bad taste in somes mouth. Talking to LEOs is not always a bad thing, answering a simple question is not always a bad thing. If I am waiting for the bus and a LEO just happens to ask me if my weapon is loaded, I am going to say yes. If he asks me to show my CPL, I will. That is my call. Eveyone has a choice as to what they will do. If you choose to stay silent, then more than likely you will be detained and you may be arrested. If you want to take that route, by all means you go ahead. However, YOU will end up showing your CPL no matter which way you look at it, so you might as well show it and avoind all the court time.
    Clerk: Is that a weapon?
    Me: No, it is my tool.
    Clerk:
    Me: A tool that takes some time to master!
    Clerk:
    Me: Have a nice day!

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Ditto DeltaOps, it has become like a badge of honor with a few on the forum to go into the extremes and if they place themselves in harms way, by all means go for it, but to encourage others to harms way by encouraging confrontational encounters and implying that we have nothing to hide or doing something wrong or they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.

    The attitude taken by these few are seen in convicts and criminals with not a thought of anyone but themselves and will brow beat anyone opposing them.

    If I am asked for my CPL, I have no issue, If asked for my ID, I have no issue and I will continue to talk with law enforcement on encounters without fear of someone being out to get me attitude often expressed here.

    Is there bad in this world, no doubt though there is so much more good in all aspects of my life anyways, is that being a positivist sure but better then being a negativist and fear everyone is out to get them and display a screw them before they screw you attitudes.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Oh, I have yet to have anyone state the factual basis for the firearm being loaded from the LEOs vantage point, without consensual information from the carrier or some violation of his person and property. The LEOs opinion is not sufficient in my readings of the cited decisions by the WA Supreme Court. I do agree someone may need to take a stand on it to get it set in stone, since none of the cases I can find specifdically deal with this issue.
    Washington is not California. An unloaded firearm makes a very poor club and an even poorer throwing knife. Carrying a firearm for purposes of self-defense is partially defeated by unloaded carry. IMO it's not unreasonable to assume people would be carrying a loaded firearm when not in places that require it be unloaded; And seeing someone move from such a place where loaded carry is legal into a place where it is not, without unloading, would create some suspicion that a crime had been committed.

    Is it enough to make a non-consensual investigative stop, in and of itself? I doubt it. But an officer certainly could wander over and ask a few questions in a consensual encounter. And the answers (if any) could lead to enough reasonable suspicion to go further.

    Note that some holster/firearm combinations do make it possible to tell at a glance whether the weapon is loaded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    1: I walk up to my car, with keys in hand and I'm within line of sight of a LEO... Does he have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my driver's license or for that matter, proof of insurance and registration?
    If the matter is simply as you described, no he does not. If you stumble twice, puke once and drop your keys three times as you attempt to enter your car, well, that's another story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    2: I'm standing at a bus transet center waiting for a bus iwh a handgun on my hip. Does the officer standing near by have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my consealed weapon permit and ID?
    Anybody has the right to ask. But I suspect you meant demand, not ask. Simply standing there, no he does not. Though it's worth noting that in the other thread, the OP was asked if his gun was loaded and if he was waiting for a bus, and he answered both questions affirmatively. Doing that would give an officer authority to ask about exemptions to 9.41.050, the most common of which is answered with the display of a CPL. But even then, he wouldn't have cause to demand to see a driver's license or state ID card.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    With both examples, each activity is illegal without the proper permits/licenses.

    It's already an established fact that any washington state LEO cannot even ask to see your driver's license without Probable Cause or Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion. What makes this any different then the 2nd example?
    It doesn't. If no crime is being committed, and no crime appears to be about to be committed, the extent of the officer's authority is to engage in a consensual interaction, and ask some polite questions, which the person he's talking to is under no legal obligation to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARADCOM View Post
    The way I read it, not having a CPL is an element of the crime regarding carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, person open carrying, which requires no license in Washington, gets into a vehicle... I see no RAS for the officer to stop the person at that point only for the reason of verifying they have a CPL, unless there was actual reason to believe the person did not have a CPL. Correct?
    Which leaves the officer having witnessed a misdemeanor being committed. If he is not allowed to ask about a CPL or other exemption to the law, he has still seen an action that is a crime. That's probable cause. So he makes an arrest, and when it comes to light that the arrestee has a CPL, the charges are dropped. Personally, given the choice between being hauled to a police station in handcuffs and answering a reasonable question, I'll answer the question.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Ditto DeltaOps, it has become like a badge of honor with a few on the forum to go into the extremes and if they place themselves in harms way, by all means go for it, but to encourage others to harms way by encouraging confrontational encounters and implying that we have nothing to hide or doing something wrong or they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.

    The attitude taken by these few are seen in convicts and criminals with not a thought of anyone but themselves and will brow beat anyone opposing them.

    If I am asked for my CPL, I have no issue, If asked for my ID, I have no issue and I will continue to talk with law enforcement on encounters without fear of someone being out to get me attitude often expressed here.

    Is there bad in this world, no doubt though there is so much more good in all aspects of my life anyways, is that being a positivist sure but better then being a negativist and fear everyone is out to get them and display a screw them before they screw you attitudes.
    hmm, so standing up for your rights is the province of convicts and criminals? I wonder where we would be if someone named Rosa Parks had been willing to move to the back of the bus, in accordance with the law of the time. Sounds like pretty good company to me, but that is merely my opinion freely expressed an offered up to others.

    I am merely discussing my views of the cases the Supreme Court of our state have decided, you are welcome to your opinion. I do make an assumption that all "men" are capable of making up their own minds, the only citations I have seen are from the RCWs, while mine are from case law incident to them. The legislature is able to make any law it can get a majority to support, this does not mean the law will stand the test of "constitutionality" the cases cited seem to me to indicate that there is room for my interpretation, if you would be so kind as to provide some cases that support your view, that would be a basis for discussion.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    @difdi, I agree some holster/firearms could provide a visual indication to a knowledgeable LEO as the firearm is loaded as a FACT, but other than that it seems you are agreeing that the simple act of getting in/on a vehicle with a holstered firearm does not present enough facts to proceed past a consensual encounter, or am I misreading your post?

  15. #15
    Regular Member DeltaOps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    hmm, so standing up for your rights is the province of convicts and criminals? I wonder where we would be if someone named Rosa Parks had been willing to move to the back of the bus, in accordance with the law of the time. Sounds like pretty good company to me, but that is merely my opinion freely expressed an offered up to others.

    I am merely discussing my views of the cases the Supreme Court of our state have decided, you are welcome to your opinion. I do make an assumption that all "men" are capable of making up their own minds, the only citations I have seen are from the RCWs, while mine are from case law incident to them. The legislature is able to make any law it can get a majority to support, this does not mean the law will stand the test of "constitutionality" the cases cited seem to me to indicate that there is room for my interpretation, if you would be so kind as to provide some cases that support your view, that would be a basis for discussion.
    Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.
    Clerk: Is that a weapon?
    Me: No, it is my tool.
    Clerk:
    Me: A tool that takes some time to master!
    Clerk:
    Me: Have a nice day!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    found another citation:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-...s/1386780.html State v. ALMANZA-GUZMAN, Jan 1999

    Firearm plus suspicion that a permit is required does not equate to RAS, even for at the time a felony (since changed in the RCWs). If the WA Appeals court finds a gun plus the suspicion a permit is required is insufficient for an investigative detention, what do you expect the reaction will be for a "civil infraction" or a misdemeanor?

    No I have a CPL since the current law requires that I have one to make my carry of a firearm legal in a few more places, no where in this discussion am I advocating breaking the law, I am asserting that my right to privacy shields me from unwarranted searches/seizures/invasions of my privacy. I disagree with the law (.050) based on our constitution , I also disagree that we need a license to exercise a right, but that is a different discussion.
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 08-06-2012 at 04:53 AM. Reason: edit to reply to the CPL comment

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    found another citation:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-...s/1386780.html State v. ALMANZA-GUZMAN, Jan 1999

    Firearm plus suspicion that a permit is required does not equate to RAS, even for at the time a felony (since changed in the RCWs). If the WA Appeals court finds a gun plus the suspicion a permit is required is insufficient for an investigative detention, what do you expect the reaction will be for a "civil infraction" or a misdemeanor?

    No I have a CPL since the current law requires that I have one to make my carry of a firearm legal in a few more places, no where in this discussion am I advocating breaking the law, I am asserting that my right to privacy shields me from unwarranted searches/seizures/invasions of my privacy. I disagree with the law (.050) based on our constitution , I also disagree that we need a license to exercise a right, but that is a different discussion.
    +1

    It isn't about paranoia, it isn't about having something to hide, it isn't about instilling fear it is about protecting something sacred our fundamental rights.

    I also got one because the current law says I need it doesn't mean I agree with the law.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-06-2012 at 09:55 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaOps View Post
    Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.
    What has this contributed to this thread other than "Show your CPL" because I do?

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Ditto DeltaOps, it has become like a badge of honor with a few on the forum to go into the extremes and if they place themselves in harms way, by all means go for it, but to encourage others to harms way by encouraging confrontational encounters and implying that we have nothing to hide or doing something wrong or they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.

    The attitude taken by these few are seen in convicts and criminals with not a thought of anyone but themselves and will brow beat anyone opposing them.

    If I am asked for my CPL, I have no issue, If asked for my ID, I have no issue and I will continue to talk with law enforcement on encounters without fear of someone being out to get me attitude often expressed here.

    Is there bad in this world, no doubt though there is so much more good in all aspects of my life anyways, is that being a positivist sure but better then being a negativist and fear everyone is out to get them and display a screw them before they screw you attitudes.
    Funny, so those who stand up for rights are extremist, anarchist and criminals? Thomas Jefferson Rolling over in his grave.

    Ummmm by the way I don't think you grasp the definition of positivist it goes hand in hand with statism.

    I would suggest you guys discuss this in another section. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...39#post1802539
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    found another citation:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-...s/1386780.html State v. ALMANZA-GUZMAN, Jan 1999

    Firearm plus suspicion that a permit is required does not equate to RAS, even for at the time a felony (since changed in the RCWs). If the WA Appeals court finds a gun plus the suspicion a permit is required is insufficient for an investigative detention, what do you expect the reaction will be for a "civil infraction" or a misdemeanor?

    No I have a CPL since the current law requires that I have one to make my carry of a firearm legal in a few more places, no where in this discussion am I advocating breaking the law, I am asserting that my right to privacy shields me from unwarranted searches/seizures/invasions of my privacy. I disagree with the law (.050) based on our constitution , I also disagree that we need a license to exercise a right, but that is a different discussion.
    Our discussion is in the face of a restricted area defined in RCW 9.41.050 and RCW 9.41.300 or a place that requires possession of a CPL.
    Your cite holds no weight as the circumstances where ALMANZA-GUZMAN was not in, dare I say it again "a restricted area requiring a CPL"

    Nothing has been cited here where the State cannot enact a law that requires one to produce a CPL while in a restricted area (requiring a CPL to be in their possession and displayed upon demand by law enforcement).

    Our actions in public both help and hinder the normalization of carry or open carry, it is up to each person on how much effort they put into help or hinder.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaOps View Post
    Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.
    Of course not all LEOs are bad, the problem being is how do you tell the bad ones from the good ones during a stop???? How do you know if that LEO is out to get you or not until its too late???? The way I look at it is even if only 10% of LEOs are bad eggs I have a greater than 1 in ten chance of running into a jerk that could make my life tough for simply exercising my state and federal constitutional rights. I am sorry but I do not like those odds not to mention I believe the bad LEO percentage is more like 20 to 30%.

    All I am asking is for the LEO to follow the law(s) after all that is what LEOs are demanding of me. Whats wrong with demanding LEOs follow the letter of the law??? No one has to be rude including the LEO and I am not suggesting rudeness be employed by anyone.

    It is also obvious that you have not been on the receiving end of a bad LEO encounter that will do more than anything else to change your attitude about how you are willing to interact with LE.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    hmm, so standing up for your rights is the province of convicts and criminals?
    If you go by TV shows like Law & Order (or most other cop shows) lawyering up and insisting your rights be respected is something only criminals do. Innocent people have nothing to hide. If only real life cops were as dedicated to the law as the fictional ones, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    @difdi, I agree some holster/firearms could provide a visual indication to a knowledgeable LEO as the firearm is loaded as a FACT, but other than that it seems you are agreeing that the simple act of getting in/on a vehicle with a holstered firearm does not present enough facts to proceed past a consensual encounter, or am I misreading your post?
    Nope, you're not misreading anything. If the LEO knows the firearm is loaded in a restricted area, that creates reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed, unless the person is exempted from the law. This has been the point I have been arguing all along in the other thread. If the law didn't have so many exemptions, it would be probable cause rather than reasonable articulable suspicion. RAS is enough to investigate to see whether the person is exempt or not. Refusing to state an exemption or show a CPL would give the officer probable cause to make an arrest for the misdemeanor of carrying in a restricted area/manner. On top of the civil infraction of refusing to display a CPL when required to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    All I am asking is for the LEO to follow the law(s) after all that is what LEOs are demanding of me. Whats wrong with demanding LEOs follow the letter of the law??? No one has to be rude including the LEO and I am not suggesting rudeness be employed by anyone.
    That's all I ask as well. Simple open carry + area where loaded carry is restricted does not amount to probable cause that a crime has been committed, because the weapon may not be loaded, and there are a ton of exemptions that make loaded open carry legal even in a restricted area. If the LEO knows the weapon is loaded, then he absolutely has reasonable articulable suspicion to inquire about exemption status (the most common of which is a CPL). The fact it is silly to carry unloaded for the purpose of self-defense in a place like Washington where loaded carry is almost always legal may or may not give him RAS even if he doesn't actually know whether the weapon is loaded. If the carrier refuses to state an exemption or display a CPL, the fact remains they are carrying in a restricted area. This is not probable cause, unless the carrier admits the weapon is loaded, or the officer can observe that it is loaded (1911 locked & cocked, for example, or a revolver in an open holster) without making a seizure. RAS isn't enough for an arrest, but a loaded weapon + restricted area + no exemption does create probable cause.
    Last edited by Difdi; 08-06-2012 at 12:21 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Dave are you serious? In the cited case the man required a state issue permit to avoid being guilty of a FELONY. Our CPL is to avoid being guilty of in general, misdemeanor's or "civil infractions". The Washington State Court has used language in multiple cases to declare that as the crime becomes less heinous law enforcement is more circumscribed in investigating or intruding into a private citizens affairs.

    " The State argues that Olson and Coleman also knew that Washington rarely issues alien firearm licenses and Guzman was carrying a gun.   But while this may be true, it is simply not enough to suspect someone of criminal activity.   Guzman was carrying a gun at a gun show.   Certainly, a gun show is one of the least suspicious places to tote a gun.   More persuasive is the argument that the gun was under his jacket and had not been disabled at the entrance.   However, we find that more indications of suspicious activity are required.   Neither the record nor the trial court's findings point to any other arguably suspect behavior by Guzman." from the cited case

    "This rule illustrates the higher burden this court imposes upon officers when investigating lesser crimes.   Accepting the presumption that more serious crimes pose a greater risk of harm to society, we place an inversely proportional burden in relation to the level of the violation.   Thus, society will tolerate a higher level of intrusion for a greater risk and higher crime than it would for a lesser crime." State v. Duncan

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaOps View Post
    Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.
    SHOWING/DISPLAYING it is not the same as being told to HAND IT OVER and then demanding government ID to go along with it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Dave are you serious? In the cited case the man required a state issue permit to avoid being guilty of a FELONY. Our CPL is to avoid being guilty of in general, misdemeanor's or "civil infractions". The Washington State Court has used language in multiple cases to declare that as the crime becomes less heinous law enforcement is more circumscribed in investigating or intruding into a private citizens affairs.

    " The State argues that Olson and Coleman also knew that Washington rarely issues alien firearm licenses and Guzman was carrying a gun.   But while this may be true, it is simply not enough to suspect someone of criminal activity.   Guzman was carrying a gun at a gun show.   Certainly, a gun show is one of the least suspicious places to tote a gun.   More persuasive is the argument that the gun was under his jacket and had not been disabled at the entrance.   However, we find that more indications of suspicious activity are required.   Neither the record nor the trial court's findings point to any other arguably suspect behavior by Guzman." from the cited case

    "This rule illustrates the higher burden this court imposes upon officers when investigating lesser crimes.   Accepting the presumption that more serious crimes pose a greater risk of harm to society, we place an inversely proportional burden in relation to the level of the violation.   Thus, society will tolerate a higher level of intrusion for a greater risk and higher crime than it would for a lesser crime." State v. Duncan
    Are you serious? In the case it is determining if there was RAS in the presented circumstances and since he was not in an area that restricted firearms possession with a requirement of being in possession of a CPL they lacked cause to detain and investigate.
    The carrying of a firearm in a gun show is not restricted in State Law nor does it have an exemption requiring a CPL. As it has been discussed on many occasions the mere site of a firearm is not cause to alarm someone nor detain where a person has a right to be with out restrictions being applied as in RCW 9.41.050.
    If it had been a restricted area requiring a CPL then RAS would have been met and the case would not have been overturned.

    I feel this more leans to the fact you and others feel the State cannot enact laws governing firearms with in it boundaries, will it stand up to a State Constitutional challenge is yet to be seen and until then it is State Law like it or not.

    Personally I would prefer if we had Constitutional Carry and all of this would go away.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    The court also dealt with the concealment issue

    "The State argues that Olson and Coleman also knew that Washington rarely issues alien firearm licenses and Guzman was carrying a gun.   But while this may be true, it is simply not enough to suspect someone of criminal activity.   Guzman was carrying a gun at a gun show.   Certainly, a gun show is one of the least suspicious places to tote a gun.   More persuasive is the argument that the gun was under his jacket and had not been disabled at the entrance[b].   However, we find that more indications of suspicious activity are required.   Neither the record nor the trial court's findings point to any other arguably suspect behavior by Guzman.

    "More persuasive is the argument that the gun was under his jacket and had not been disabled at the entrance.   However, we find that more indications of suspicious activity are required."

    Sure looks like the court thought that he was concealing the firearm, which does generally require a CPL.

    "What we are left with is a man who failed to check his gun at the gun show entrance, approached a gun dealer's table, and then took out the gun to show the gun dealer the replacement part he needed.   These facts alone, without anything more, are insufficient to provide a basis for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"

    Firearm plus concealed was still not enough reason to perform an "investigative detention", without trotting this over to a lawyer, it seems to be fairly conclusive that our courts HAVE dealt with the issue at hand and decided in favor of our Art 1, sect. 7 right to privacy absent other circumstances.
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 08-06-2012 at 01:34 PM. Reason: hit post too soon

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •