9.41.050 and 9.41.060 discussion

Vitaeus said:

hmm, so standing up for your rights is the province of convicts and criminals?

Click to expand...

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?

Vitaeus said:

@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?

Click to expand...

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.

Orphan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

DeltaOps said:

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.

Click to expand...

SHOWING/DISPLAYING it is not the same as being told to HAND IT OVER and then demanding government ID to go along with it.

Vitaeus said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.   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.

Maybe we can look at it this way, Our CPL and the "Exemptions" in .060 make it NOT A CRIME to carry a loaded firearm on public transportation.

This is a different approach that what say NY does. NY calls abiding by the exemptions an "affirative defence". The crime is still a crime in NY, it is not here in WA. An example is the guy that reciently was arrested for violating the NY AWB. The firearm he had in his possession was most definately a banned weapon, but it was purchased well before the NYS AWB was enacted, and was exempt. However, the exemption is an "affirmative defence", so he was charged, and then had to prove he purchesed it prior to the ban. Personally I think this is unconstitutional as it presumes guilt...but in NY, this is how it works.

In WA we do not have any of this "affirmative defence" garbage, and exemption is just that, the law does not apply those that are exempt.

For that reason, and for the many court decisions, in WA, getting onto a bus with a loaded handgun is NOT a reason for a detention and search because it is not in and of itself a crime.

There is a lot of difference between "not guilt because" and not being able to charge someone at all.

Orphan said:

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.

Click to expand...

You will never know if any LEO (unless you actually know him/her) is good or bad. However, if one wants to be an ass, then they are well with in the rights to do so. It is really simple, if you are OCing at a bus stop and you are about to board a bus, the LEO can ask if it is loaded and if you have a CPL. If you refuse goto show your CPL, YOU will goto jail. When you goto court and tell the Judge that your rights were violated cause YOU refused to show your CPL, he will have no mercy on you.

Any LEO can walk up to you in public and ask a question, just like any other person can. Some of you talk about rights and never speak to police. The funny part, you already have spoken to police and gave up your rights on the forums. So if you are stuck on "do not talk to a LEO" maybe you should quit posting.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a personal attack on anyone!

Now mainly my whole point on all of this is...... Educate the uneducated.

So if you feel that it is not with-in the LEOs rights to ask you for your CPL, then perhaps you should educate that LEO.

This scenerio is fictional:

LEO: Excuse me sir/ma'am! I see you are standing at this bus stop.
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes sir/ma'am.
LEO: Are you waiting for the bus?
Loaded OC Citizen: I am
LEO: Is your pistol loaded?
Now this is where you have two choices. One, do not say a word, or two, you can say yes. Lets play out scenerio one.
Loaded OC Citizen: I refuse to answer anymore questions.
LEO: Ok no problem but I will have to ask you to please keep your hands where I can see them at all times!
Loaded OC Citizen: Am I being detained?
LEO: Yes, you may want to call your lawyer if you have one.
Loaded OC Citizen: I have done nothing wrong, why am I being detained?
LEO: I asked a simple question, you do not want to answer, that is fine. For my safety, please turn around and place your hands on your head.
Loaded OC Citizen: I have done nothing wrong?
LEO: I understand, now please turn around and put your hands on your head. For officers safety, I am going to handcuff you and remove your weapon from your hoslster.

Now at this point in time, you have no choice but to do as the LEO asks. You have missed the bus and will not make it to your destination.
Back up arrives, and if you have a lawyer, I am sure he will be waiting for you at the jail. Is the LEO right? Yes. Also even wrong too. However, it is not up to you ar the LEO to decide that. You have been detained because you did not answer a simple question. The LEO does not know who you are , nor what your intentions are. He has one duty, to enforce the law. Since it is illegal to carry a loaded pistol while OCing on a bus without a CPL he is only trying to enforce the law. However, it is not up to you to argue with that LEO, doing so will only get you in more hot water. Simply refuse to answer and call your Lawyer. You will have a court date and you will be able to plee your case in front of the Judge. Nothing wrong with fighting for your rights, just make sure you are with-in the law when you do it. So if you decide to go with the " I refuse to asnswer your questions". You may be detained and after it is all done, only the Judge will have the final say and you will still have to prove you have a CPL, and not only that, but now show your ID and sign crap, and deal with the exspenses.

Scenerio number two

LEO: Excuse me sir/ma'am! I see you are standing at this bus stop.
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes sir/ma'am.
LEO: Are you waiting for the bus?
Loaded OC Citizen: I am
LEO: Is your pistol loaded?
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes it is.
LEO: you said you are waiting for the bus, you plan on getting on the bus?
Loaded OC Citizen: yes
LEO: do you have a CPL?
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes
LEO: Can I see your CPL?
Loaded OC Citizen: Sure. (hands the LEO the CPL)

This is where is should end. If the LEO asks anymore questions, this is where you have the right to not say a damn thing. OR, you can engage in a friendly conversation and bulid relations with the LEO. However, you must stay alert and make sure the LEO is not fishing.

I know some will disagree with both scenerios, but I have seen it, I have heard it. I have talked to friends that are a LEO as well as people who work for L.E.S.A. (Law Enforcment Support Agency). You can be contacted and you nay be asked. It is up to YOU and ONLY YOU as to where you want to take it. Everyone reading this has the right to choose what direction to take. Sure everybody wants advise, but it is up to the individual to react. Everyone has an opinion as to what may or may not happen. We can all cite past cases, but sometimes, it is better to just follow the law, cause it is illegal to OC a loaded pistol in a vehicle without a CPL unless you are excempt.

John Doe walks from a bar to his car and drives away. Can a LEO just pull the car over? No!, but that LEO can follow that car and as soon as the person driving breaks any kind of traffic law, that LEO can now pull him over. This really has no comparison to a loaded pistol and OCing in a vehicle.

Rosa Parks- not the same as OCing a loaded pistol in a vehicle. Unless you want to boycott OCing loaded in a vehicle without a CPL. She stood up for her civil rights as a Afican American. What she did changed the course of history for all women of color. Now if you want to leave your CPL at home and start the boycott, I will read about you in the paper.

Every law abiding citizen has rights, and it is up to you to exercise them. Now if we could get everyone on the same page, then sure, lets get all Washington Residents together and lets go make a stand, but if that is something you do not want to lead, then quit citing and start doing.

To your last Dave I wholeheartedly agree, constitutional carry and preemption with penalties for folks that decline to follow it would solve a huge portion of this.

hermannr said:

Maybe we can look at it this way, Our CPL and the "Exemptions" in .060 make it NOT A CRIME to carry a loaded firearm on public transportation.

<snip>

In WA we do not have any of this "affirmative defence" garbage, and exemption is just that, the law does not apply those that are exempt.

For that reason, and for the many court decisions, in WA, getting onto a bus with a loaded handgun is NOT a reason for a detention and search because it is not in and of itself a crime.

There is a lot of difference between "not guilt because" and not being able to charge someone at all.

Click to expand...

+1 This is what I have taken out of the discussions. The 'provisions' .....'shall not apply to:'

They simply do not apply. It is incumbent upon the LEO and not the citizen via Art I Sec 7 to determine any additional facts that would make it apply.
I believe (and trying to verify) that loaded weapons in a vehicle was written precisely as an 'add on' charge and not a primary offense. I have spoken with 2 sheriff's deputies, and a game warden and they have all stated that they only use it as an add on charge. I have also spoken with a prosecutor and he also stated that he can not recall it being used for anything else other than an add on charge. (All primarily for gang members and/or poachers). Perhaps Llammo can throw in his experience as well?

RCW 9.41.060 Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:

Click to expand...

Delta Op


Scenario number two is VERY fictional.

Under BOTH scenarios you miss your bus.

I would know. I have lived scenario number two.


AGAIN with this question. Where is the law showing that I have to do any more than DISPLAY a CPL for one and two where does it say I would have to hand it over?

NOW back to the original point. What law requires you to have government issued photo ID to go with your CPL?

Freedom1Man said:

Delta Op


Scenario number two is VERY fictional.

Under BOTH scenarios you miss your bus.

I would know. I have lived scenario number two.


AGAIN with this question. Where is the law showing that I have to do any more than DISPLAY a CPL for one and two where does it say I would have to hand it over?

NOW back to the original point. What law requires you to have government issued photo ID to go with your CPL?

Click to expand...

I never said you HAD to hand it over, and I never said you HAVE to show your Government Issue ID to go with your CPL. Wear your CPL around your neck, or display it out in the open, as long as it is displayed when required to do so, either way is a choice only you as the individual can make.

What is the point of having a CPL if all law abiding citizens were to never be stopped and asked a simple question. The need for a CPL would not exhist if some peoples thinking was in fact a fact.

I have not run into any encounter myself, but then again, I have never carried when I had to ride the bus, just due to the fact, when I had to ride the bus, it was to work. Now with that being said, everytime I do OC and when I leave my vehicle, my CPL stays in the vehicle I just left. I do not need a CPL when I am out walking around, nor do I need a Government Issue ID. However, I do carry my ID with me along with my Debit card. If I was ever stopped and asked for my ID, I wouldn't show it, cause I do not have too. If for some reason I hd to ride the bus, and I was asked to show my CPL, I would, because it is against the law to not display your CPL when asked to do so where it is otherwise illegal to carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle unless you are exempt. The law is in black and white. It is written in a way that may or may not be deceiving. It is not up to us to argue that law with any LEO. If you want to argue with someone. Hire a lawyer and argue with the Judge. Then and hoepfully then will the law be plainly written. I do not need to ride a bus at this time for any reason, and I am not sure if any one on here does as well. If someone wants to start riding the bus everyday, all day and test the law, please feel free to do so. I will not be one of those to do it.

I am not giving up my rights nor will anyone try to take my rights away without a legal fight. All I am doing is cooperating with the law and engaging in some friendly conversation with some caution that it may turn ugly at anytime. Be prepared but for the love of all Americans, lets try to get along. Lets make an encounter a good encounter by starting off on the Offensive instead of the Defensive.

Now for missing the bus part in scenerio number two, I am not missing the bus. If I am about to walk onto the bus and I am asked by a LEO tpo show my CPL, I will display it and walk on the bus. If he wants to get on with me and pursue it further, that is his choice. If I am asked to step off the bus, I will not do no such thing. That is when my rights are really being violated.

Orphan said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1

DeltaOps said:

Hire a lawyer and argue with the Judge.

Click to expand...

No. Do not argue with the Judge.

rapgood said:

No. Do not argue with the Judge.

Click to expand...

argue, debate, contest, or any other word one should see fit to use. Either way, if you choose to remain silent, then do so. If you choose to co-operate and still not have your rights violated, then do so. Everyone will interpret the law one way or another to what they think.

So who wants to be the one to test the LEO and the right to remain silent when approached by a LEO about OCing loaded on a bus? Any takers?

This is a good debate though. I have no hard feelings toward anyone here. We all simply state what we think or what we would do, but until it really happens, one may not really know for sure.

So who wants to be the one to test the LEO and the right to remain silent when approached by a LEO about OCing loaded on a bus? Any takers?

Click to expand...

I would gladly do this considering I ride the bus everywhere I go since I don't own a car but I don't yet own a gun either lol

hermannr said:

Maybe we can look at it this way, Our CPL and the "Exemptions" in .060 make it NOT A CRIME to carry a loaded firearm on public transportation.

Click to expand...

The law makes it a crime to carry loaded in a restricted area (the bus). That law may not apply to you due to your CPL (or other exemption) but without knowing that exemption exists, a LEO can only operate on the observable facts, which include the fact that a misdemeanor has been committed. So the officer has a duty to investigate the matter, which is accomplished by asking you if you are exempted, and if you fail to state a valid exemption, you are still committing a crime.

hermannr said:

This is a different approach that what say NY does. NY calls abiding by the exemptions an "affirative defence". The crime is still a crime in NY, it is not here in WA. An example is the guy that reciently was arrested for violating the NY AWB. The firearm he had in his possession was most definately a banned weapon, but it was purchased well before the NYS AWB was enacted, and was exempt. However, the exemption is an "affirmative defence", so he was charged, and then had to prove he purchesed it prior to the ban. Personally I think this is unconstitutional as it presumes guilt...but in NY, this is how it works.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's true, NY approaches things a bit differently than WA. But you've drawn the wrong conclusion from it. An affirmative defense is a plea made in a court of law. Much like pleading self-defense. It does not presume guilt; If it did, then he would have served time in state prison for violating the AWB, no trial needed. In NY, an arrest ALWAYS occurs, and the accused can present his affirmative defense when he comes in front of a judge, that's how an affirmative defense works. In WA, the police officer investigates whether a crime has been committed; If no crime has been committed, the investigation ends. If a crime has been committed, then an arrest follows.

hermannr said:

In WA we do not have any of this "affirmative defence" garbage, and exemption is just that, the law does not apply those that are exempt.

For that reason, and for the many court decisions, in WA, getting onto a bus with a loaded handgun is NOT a reason for a detention and search because it is not in and of itself a crime.

Click to expand...

IF that were true, and it's not, then it would be almost impossible for police to ever make an arrest for any law that has an exemption in it, because all such arrests would be false. The only time an arrest would not be false, if you were correct, would be in the event of a confession. This is not how the system works.

There is a reason why the legal system distinguishes between the standards of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, beyond a reasonable doubt and absolute proof. In most situations, absolute proof is impossible to accomplish. A conviction on a criminal charge doesn't require that level of proof, it merely requires beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute proof, people are exonerated of wrongful convictions all the time. But it's the standard our courts run on.

Probable cause is a step below beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is required for an arrest and booking. Probable cause is not proof, merely a likelihood that a crime was committed. If no exemptions to carry in a vehicle existed, then seeing someone armed in a vehicle would be probable cause. If someone admits to not being exempt during an investigative stop, and is in violation of the law during the stop, then that is probable cause. It's not proof. It doesn't trip over rights to due process, or being innocent until proven guilty. An arrest is not a conviction.

Lastly we have reasonable suspicion and reasonable articulable suspicion. Seeing someone armed in a restricted area is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. It is not proof of guilt, it is not probable cause. But it is enough to justify an investigative stop. An investigative stop is not (technically) an arrest, since you don't spend the night in jail, or have to post bail. An investigative stop is a short term intrusion on your life, and if you cooperate as is your duty under the law, and have not actually broken the law, then short term is all it will be.

Getting onto a bus with a loaded firearm is a misdemeanor in the state of Washington. A misdemeanor is a crime. There are exemptions to the law, but people with CPLs don't glow in the dark or sparkle in the sunlight. And loaded carry on a bus is a crime. Due to the number of exemptions, loaded carry on a bus does not generate probable cause to make an arrest, since it's possible the act isn't illegal. But since there is a law on the books against loaded carry on a bus, a LEO has a duty to investigate. This is reasonable suspicion. And it is indeed reasonable.

You can choose to cooperate, and go on about your daily business. You can demand a lawyer, in which case the nice officer will take you to where you can meet with your lawyer: the police station. Because while it is true that if you are exempt you did not break the law, the officer did see an act that is normally an illegal one, and does not know you are exempt.

If you were correct about the way the law works, then nobody would ever actually need a CPL to CC or OC in a restricted area, because if the LEO observing you must assume your innocence until he can prove your guilt, and cannot make an investigative stop until you are no longer innocent, then no investigative stop would ever be possible. The same would be true of having a running gun battle in the street, breaking the side window of your own house when locked out, or carrying a weapon in a courtroom. Because he can't prove you guilty without investigating, and he cannot investigate unless you are already proven guilty. That's really, really silly. And it's not how the law works.

gogodawgs said:

+1 This is what I have taken out of the discussions. The 'provisions' .....'shall not apply to:'

They simply do not apply. It is incumbent upon the LEO and not the citizen via Art I Sec 7 to determine any additional facts that would make it apply.
I believe (and trying to verify) that loaded weapons in a vehicle was written precisely as an 'add on' charge and not a primary offense. I have spoken with 2 sheriff's deputies, and a game warden and they have all stated that they only use it as an add on charge. I have also spoken with a prosecutor and he also stated that he can not recall it being used for anything else other than an add on charge. (All primarily for gang members and/or poachers). Perhaps Llammo can throw in his experience as well?

Click to expand...

I refused to show my CPL, was illegally searched. Eventually I was free to walk away at the end of the encounter and the city settled so they wouldn't have to go to federal court.

I am willing to be inconvenienced for my rights, even go to jail if I have to.

Just like they can't assume you don't have a drivers license they can't assume you don't have a CPL.

DeltaOps said:

Loaded OC Citizen: I refuse to answer anymore questions.
LEO: Ok no problem but I will have to ask you to please keep your hands where I can see them at all times!
Loaded OC Citizen: Am I being detained?
LEO: Yes, you may want to call your lawyer if you have one.
Loaded OC Citizen: I have done nothing wrong, why am I being detained?
LEO: I asked a simple question, you do not want to answer, that is fine. For my safety, please turn around and place your hands on your head.
Loaded OC Citizen: I have done nothing wrong?
LEO: I understand, now please turn around and put your hands on your head. For officers safety, I am going to handcuff you and remove your weapon from your hoslster.

Click to expand...

You have just described an illegal search. Exercise of constitutional rights, particularly the fifth amendment, is not probable cause. Does it happen anyway? Sure. If nobody ever broke the law, nobody would have invented police. If nobody ever broke an oath, we'd just have everybody swear not to break laws at some point in their childhood. Under 18USC242, the officer has just committed a federal crime; Depending on whether simply being armed while committing a crime counts as threat of a dangerous weapon, it may or may not be a felony that the officer just committed.

DeltaOps said:

Now at this point in time, you have no choice but to do as the LEO asks. You have missed the bus and will not make it to your destination.
Back up arrives, and if you have a lawyer, I am sure he will be waiting for you at the jail.

Click to expand...

Arguable. John Bad Elk vs The United States presents a very fascinating SCOTUS decision on how the fourth amendment interacts with a false arrest. Note that the decision has never been overturned or repealed, nor has the law the decision ruled on been modified in the intervening 112 years. It still has the force of (case) law.

DeltaOps said:

He has one duty, to enforce the law.

Click to expand...

Yes he does. But since he violated his service oath in the course of your hypothetical situation, it's a pretty fair indicator that he is not carrying out his duty. Exercise of a constitutional right is not probable cause. And reasonable suspicion is insufficient to make an arrest.

DeltaOps said:

Since it is illegal to carry a loaded pistol while OCing on a bus without a CPL he is only trying to enforce the law.

Click to expand...

This is true. But it's still not probable cause. He does have reasonable suspicion, but that is insufficient for an arrest.

DeltaOps said:

However, it is not up to you to argue with that LEO, doing so will only get you in more hot water. Simply refuse to answer and call your Lawyer. You will have a court date and you will be able to plee your case in front of the Judge. Nothing wrong with fighting for your rights, just make sure you are with-in the law when you do it. So if you decide to go with the " I refuse to asnswer your questions". You may be detained and after it is all done, only the Judge will have the final say and you will still have to prove you have a CPL, and not only that, but now show your ID and sign crap, and deal with the exspenses.

Click to expand...

Aside from the arrest being illegal, this is true. Once a cop makes a decision, your choices are comply or fight. If you choose to fight, it will almost certainly be to the death (his or yours) and he probably has body armor. And if the arrest isn't false, that's at least attempted second degree murder right there if you win the fight.

It's worth noting that per SCOTUS in Bad Elk, resisting a false arrest is not a crime. Up to and (if necessary) including the death of the officer. The worst applicable charge to such a killing would be manslaughter if the officer did not offer deadly force before being killed in self-defense. If the officer did threaten or use deadly force during the resistance to the false arrest, then no crime would have been committed in killing him.

DeltaOps said:

LEO: Excuse me sir/ma'am! I see you are standing at this bus stop.
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes sir/ma'am.
LEO: Are you waiting for the bus?
Loaded OC Citizen: I am
LEO: Is your pistol loaded?
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes it is.
LEO: you said you are waiting for the bus, you plan on getting on the bus?
Loaded OC Citizen: yes
LEO: do you have a CPL?
Loaded OC Citizen: Yes
LEO: Can I see your CPL?
Loaded OC Citizen: Sure. (hands the LEO the CPL)

This is where is should end. If the LEO asks anymore questions, this is where you have the right to not say a damn thing. OR, you can engage in a friendly conversation and bulid relations with the LEO. However, you must stay alert and make sure the LEO is not fishing.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct outside of the fact that you also have the right to clam up in scenario #1, and the officer can't make a legal arrest in that situation either.

DeltaOps said:

I know some will disagree with both scenerios, but I have seen it, I have heard it. I have talked to friends that are a LEO as well as people who work for L.E.S.A. (Law Enforcment Support Agency). You can be contacted and you nay be asked. It is up to YOU and ONLY YOU as to where you want to take it. Everyone reading this has the right to choose what direction to take. Sure everybody wants advise, but it is up to the individual to react. Everyone has an opinion as to what may or may not happen. We can all cite past cases, but sometimes, it is better to just follow the law, cause it is illegal to OC a loaded pistol in a vehicle without a CPL unless you are excempt.

Click to expand...

Police tend not to be legal experts. They're barely-certified technicians, not doctors of engineering. Taking their opinions for fact can bite you, hard.

DeltaOps said:

John Doe walks from a bar to his car and drives away. Can a LEO just pull the car over? No!, but that LEO can follow that car and as soon as the person driving breaks any kind of traffic law, that LEO can now pull him over. This really has no comparison to a loaded pistol and OCing in a vehicle.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

DeltaOps said:

Rosa Parks- not the same as OCing a loaded pistol in a vehicle. Unless you want to boycott OCing loaded in a vehicle without a CPL. She stood up for her civil rights as a Afican American. What she did changed the course of history for all women of color. Now if you want to leave your CPL at home and start the boycott, I will read about you in the paper.

Click to expand...

The thing about civil disobedience is it includes a complete willingness to be arrested to prove your point. That's actually the purpose of it. Make a fuss to draw attention to injustice.

An excellent example of how an act that is prohibited by statute is not a crime subject to an affirmative defense can be found in RCW 9.41.270, which reads in relevant part:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

Click to expand...

In this statute, the corpus of the crime is defined in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 states the severity of the crime, and the penalty for committing the crime.

However, as soon as we get to paragraph 3, we are informed that if the act was committed in someone's abode or fixed place of business, then the act is not a crime because "Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply..." to such act. Subsection 3 is not an affirmative defense (i.e., there is no "unless" clause in Subsection 1 that would provide an affirmative defense). Subsection 3 states unequivocally that "subsection 1 shall not apply to" the act that would otherwise be illegal ("shall not" means that it cannot and does not apply, in any circumstance).

Simply stated, if you do it in your abode or fixed place of business, it is not a crime, and cannot be considered such. The way I read it, culpability is void from the moment the act is completed.

rapgood said:

An excellent example of how an act that is prohibited by statute is not a crime subject to an affirmative defense can be found in RCW 9.41.270, which reads in relevant part:



In this statute, the corpus of the crime is defined in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 states the severity of the crime, and the penalty for committing the crime.

However, as soon as we get to paragraph 3, we are informed that if the act was committed in someone's abode or fixed place of business, then the act is not a crime because "Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply..." to such act. Subsection 3 is not an affirmative defense (i.e., there is no "unless" clause in Subsection 1 that would provide an affirmative defense). Subsection 3 states unequivocally that "subsection 1 shall not apply to" the act that would otherwise be illegal ("shall not" means that it cannot and does not apply, in any circumstance).

Simply stated, if you do it in your abode or fixed place of business, it is not a crime, and cannot be considered such. The way I read it, culpability is void from the moment the act is completed.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Section 3 starts This shall not apply to: and then lists several exemptions. Very simply, If I was to pull my weapon on a car-jacker...this would not apply...even though the obvious INTENT is to display the weapon in an aggressive manner. It is the self-defense exemption. If I was to pull my weapon on a person for no good reason, or just do the Arab thing of shooting in the air when they celebrate...than it would apply.

I will guarantee you, If I display my firearm in an effort to dissuade a car-jacker...I would not be charged under .270. An affirmative defense is when I would be charged and would have to prove my innocence in court...becasue...

Difdie:

The law does not make it a crime to carry a loaded weapon on a bus. The law states, to carry loaded on/in a vehicle you need to meet these requirements.

Read Blackstone some time...he is the source for English Common Law tradition...and one assumption in English Common Law is: "You are innocent until proven guilty" Then Article 1 Section 7 (Which BTW has stronger wording that the 4th Ammendment to teh US constitution, that has been upheld in the State Supreme Court) of the Washington State Constitution says you will not be bothered in your private affairs without warrent (warrent can be inturperated as reason).

NYS has DUI check points...WA does not...Why? Article 1 Section 7. Random stops may be legal under the US constitution, they may be legal under the NYS constitution...but they are not legal in WA state.

For the same reason, it is Illegal for a WA state LEO to just stop you to check your CPL, or to see if your weapon is loaded, even IF that loaded carry could be an "crime". Because it can also NOT be a crime, it must be assumed (barring other outside circumstances) that the act IS Legal.

The mere act of carrying a loaded gun for your own self defence is NOT an illegal act, and you cannot allow it to be treated as one. If you do, you do a disservice to yourself, and your community.