Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Requirement to show CPL when concealed carrying?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Cool Requirement to show CPL when concealed carrying?

    I was recently reading the traffic stop thread where Freedom1Man brought up a very good point in his post here:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1894638

    Here is the RCW:
    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.

    (3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

    (b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

    (4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.


    1a clearly states that we must carry a CPL when we carry concealed in those circumstances. That is clear.
    1b states "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 continues with "shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person" ...continued... "when and if required by law to do so."

    Where is there a section that answers the question "when" must we display our CPL to an officer. The law implies that there is a time when we must display our CPL, but it doesn't say when that time is. We must carry our CPL when we are carrying concealed. We must display our CPL to an officer "when and if required by law to do so", that is clear. Ok, when are we required to do so?

    More on this... Let's read it another way:
    "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" ...continued... "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so."

    I think I have answered this question on my own, after rephrasing it in the latter format. There is no loophole here, that I see. Any other thoughts on this one, or is this issue now closed?
    IBTL

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterMcGavin View Post
    More on this... Let's read it another way:
    "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" ...continued... "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so."
    The consensus has been your latter interpretation. Upon demand to any officer ... Stop ... or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

    On such example of where one might be considered by law to do so, would be that of RCW 9.41.300(2)(b):
    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 02-14-2013 at 12:43 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208
    Thanks Monkay. I went around and around, and finally realized that there is no issue.

    Carry on. Nothing to see here
    IBTL

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterMcGavin View Post
    Thanks Monkay. I went around and around, and finally realized that there is no issue.

    Carry on. Nothing to see here
    That's not to say that they don't need RAS to detain you though...
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208
    Thanks for mentioning that.

    Must you be detained, as a requirement prior to displaying your CPL upon demand? As far as I understand it, traffic stops are considered detainment. It is at that time that an officer may demand your driver's license, and not until you are detained in other situations. How about if a cop sees you conceal your OC pistol, or spots your concealed firearm? That does not meet RAS of a crime, in order for a detainment, as I understand it. But, in that situation, must you be detained first?
    IBTL

  6. #6
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    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.
    "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."

    This portion is including both police officer or any other person when and if required by law, and is all inclusive to both police officer to any other person.

    Note the key wording "known" in the following.

    A police officer demanding your CPL is required by law when it becomes known that you are carrying concealed it does not need to be RAS or PC though can likely result in the demand to see your CPL.

    A city bus driver, security at a Stadium or Convention Center when it becomes known that you are carrying be it concealed or not with one caveat that a city or county ordinance prohibiting carry and they must exempt those with a CPL.

    In a traffic stop if it becomes known to the officer you are carrying a loaded firearm then they can demand your CPL.

    Then we have exemptions that do not require a CPL.

    RCW 9.41.060
    Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

    The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:

    (1) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, correctional personnel and community corrections officers as long as they are employed as such who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training and have been subject to a check through the national instant criminal background check system or an equivalent background check within the past five years, or other law enforcement officers of this state or another state. Correctional personnel and community corrections officers seeking the waiver provided for by this section are required to pay for any background check that is needed in order to exercise the waiver;

    (2) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty;

    (3) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed pistol;

    (4) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of the person, if possessing, using, or carrying a pistol in the usual or ordinary course of the business;

    (5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;

    (6) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of target shooting, when those members are at or are going to or from their places of target practice;

    (7) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of modern and antique firearm collecting, when those members are at or are going to or from their collector's gun shows and exhibits;

    (8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

    (9) Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; or

    (10) Law enforcement officers retired for service or physical disabilities, except for those law enforcement officers retired because of mental or stress-related disabilities. This subsection applies only to a retired officer who has: (a) Obtained documentation from a law enforcement agency within Washington state from which he or she retired that is signed by the agency's chief law enforcement officer and that states that the retired officer was retired for service or physical disability; and (b) not been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime making him or her ineligible for a concealed pistol license.
    Last edited by BigDave; 02-14-2013 at 02:48 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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    ...In a traffic stop if it becomes known to the officer you are carrying a loaded firearm then they can demand your CPL.
    ...
    But we have determined that, in a traffic stop, you are already detained. My question is outside that... If you are conceal carrying, walking down the street, and the wind exposes your firearm to a cop, is that enough for him to be entitle to demand to see a CPL? Or, must he have RAS and then detain you, before I am required to display my CPL for him?

    If I step out of a car and walk down the street, I believe that a cop cannot simply demand to see my driver's license because he just saw me driving. I would not be detained (let's assume he has no RAS), nor would I be in a traffic stop, so there is no requirement for me to identify myself to him. Right?
    IBTL

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterMcGavin View Post
    But we have determined that, in a traffic stop, you are already detained. My question is outside that... If you are conceal carrying, walking down the street, and the wind exposes your firearm to a cop, is that enough for him to be entitle to demand to see a CPL? Or, must he have RAS and then detain you, before I am required to display my CPL for him?

    If I step out of a car and walk down the street, I believe that a cop cannot simply demand to see my driver's license because he just saw me driving. I would not be detained (let's assume he has no RAS), nor would I be in a traffic stop, so there is no requirement for me to identify myself to him. Right?
    Not quite true as to the traffic stop, it is only when they become aware you are either concealed carrying or carrying a loaded handgun. Being stopped for a traffic violation there is no requirement to notify of being in possession of a firearm, if you tell them then it opens the door for them to demand your CPL
    Being asked by an officer if you are armed walking down the street or driving a car without RAS or PC is just that a request, if they see your concealed firearm then it opens the door to ask for your CPL. If you're open carrying then no requirement for a CPL exist unless your firearms is loaded in motor vehicle, convention or stadium with exceptions in 9.41.060.

    As for an officer requesting you identify yourself is a request and not required by law unless there is RAS or PC but to bring this back on topic if your jacket, coat, shirt flew open and he viewed your concealed pistol then they can demand your CPL which also has your identification.

    It comes down to if it becomes known you are carrying when required to have a CPL to the officer or person working where there is a restriction.
    • 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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterMcGavin View Post
    But we have determined that, in a traffic stop, you are already detained. My question is outside that... If you are conceal carrying, walking down the street, and the wind exposes your firearm to a cop, is that enough for him to be entitle to demand to see a CPL? Or, must he have RAS and then detain you, before I am required to display my CPL for him?

    If I step out of a car and walk down the street, I believe that a cop cannot simply demand to see my driver's license because he just saw me driving. I would not be detained (let's assume he has no RAS), nor would I be in a traffic stop, so there is no requirement for me to identify myself to him. Right?
    The US Supreme Court has stated in Delaware V Prouse that random stops for a license check, just because it is a licensed activity, is illegal. There must be some other reason to stop you to check for a license.

    IMHO: An officer can ask for your CPL, IF, 1: You are CC, and 2 he had reasonable suspician that a crime has been committed by you, or a crime is being committed by you at the time of the detention. That you are CC, and somewhere (like on a city bus) that, if the weapon was loaded, it would require a CPL, is not enough RAS. Why? See Delaware V Prouse, random license checks are not legal. Prouse was operating an automobile, had not done anything (traffic wise) wrong, but he was stopped for a license check. The LEO found MJ in the car, siezed it, and charge Prouse with possession. The US Supreme Court said the evidence was poisioned by the manner it was found and that random license checks for a licensed activity (driving a car in the case of Prouse) are not tolerated under the 4A.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208
    Hmmmm. You both make good points.

    The RCW does state: "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 ...". That is pretty strong wording that, once an officer knows that you are carrying, and have just done so concealed, he can demand your CPL.

    Comparing the CC situation with Delaware V Prouse seems like it could be apples and oranges, right?
    Last edited by ShooterMcGavin; 02-14-2013 at 07:07 PM.
    IBTL

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    The US Supreme Court has stated in Delaware V Prouse that random stops for a license check, just because it is a licensed activity, is illegal. There must be some other reason to stop you to check for a license.

    IMHO: An officer can ask for your CPL, IF, 1: You are CC, and 2 he had reasonable suspician that a crime has been committed by you, or a crime is being committed by you at the time of the detention. That you are CC, and somewhere (like on a city bus) that, if the weapon was loaded, it would require a CPL, is not enough RAS. Why? See Delaware V Prouse, random license checks are not legal. Prouse was operating an automobile, had not done anything (traffic wise) wrong, but he was stopped for a license check. The LEO found MJ in the car, siezed it, and charge Prouse with possession. The US Supreme Court said the evidence was poisioned by the manner it was found and that random license checks for a licensed activity (driving a car in the case of Prouse) are not tolerated under the 4A.
    If the situation was that an Officer just walked up where there is no restriction on firearms possession and asked for your CPL then I whole hearty agree with your position on this issue.

    If it became known during a legal encounter be it officer asking if one was armed and they replied yes or in plain view in an area restricted for possession of firearms an officer could demand a cpl if the circumstances or place required a cpl as in RCW 9.41.280/300, RCW 70.108.150.
    • 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
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Papers please... I think not.

    Quote Originally Posted by RCW 9.41.050
    (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.
    I believe the officer needs to have RAS that you don't have a license, not just that your carrying concealed. Carrying a concealed pistol is not a crime, carrying a concealed pistol without a license or meeting an exception is a crime. Washington State Constitution allows greater protections than that of the US Constitution when it comes to searches and seizures.

    In Terry vs Ohio, 4th Amendment case, it was determined that an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is, or about to be committed in order to stop an individual on the street.

    I don't think stopping an individual for conceal carry and no other reason other than to check permit would pass the muster, especially given that Washington State Constitution allows better protections.

    Of course, this is of my opinion, is not legal advise and I am not a lawyer.


    Edit: Adding court ruling Florida vs J.L., for extra reading material. This does not reference my statements but its related to the thread a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Florida vs J.L.
    Held : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and
    frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons
    in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his
    experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry
    v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations
    but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to
    provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police
    without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 327 . The contentions
    of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes
    misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip
    be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to
    adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip
    alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.
    The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an
    anonymous tip might be so great-- e.g., a report of a person carrying a bomb--as to justify a search even without a showing
    of reliability.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 02-14-2013 at 07:42 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    Papers please... I think not.
    I believe the officer needs to have RAS that you don't have a license, not just that your carrying concealed. Carrying a concealed pistol is not a crime, carrying a concealed pistol without a license or meeting an exception is a crime. Washington State Constitution allows greater protections than that of the US Constitution when it comes to searches and seizures.

    In Terry vs Ohio, 4th Amendment case, it was determined that an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is, or about to be committed in order to stop an individual on the street.

    I don't think stopping an individual for conceal carry and no other reason other than to check permit would pass the muster, especially given that Washington State Constitution allows better protections.

    Of course, this is of my opinion, is not legal advise and I am not a lawyer.
    If you try or do enter a firearm restricted area then what?
    • 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.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    For some more reading, here also is an AGO regarding "Under what circumstances may a law enforcement officer conduct a Terry stop of an individual who is carrying a firearm". While this is mostly related to warranting alarm, a lot of this can apply to the general scenario also.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    If you try or do enter a firearm restricted area then what?
    Example? Like a court room? You would be in violation if you had a CPL or not, so the mere presence of the pistol would be RAS of a crime.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 02-14-2013 at 07:56 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    For some more reading, here also is an AGO regarding "Under what circumstances may a law enforcement officer conduct a Terry stop of an individual who is carrying a firearm". While this is mostly related to warranting alarm, a lot of this can apply to the general scenario also.

    Example? Like a court room? You would be in violation if you had a CPL or not, so the mere presence of the pistol would be RAS of a crime.
    The cite of the AGO opinion is dealing with scope of a Terry Stop in regarding RCW 9.41.270 (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.

    An example would be of entering one of the restricted areas provided for in RCW 9.41.050/060/280/300 and RCW 70.108.150 gives an officer RAS to conduct a terry stop as these areas cited below restrict possession with a couple of exceptions.

    Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities Penalty Exceptions.
    (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:
    (a) Any firearm;

    Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
    (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;
    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
    (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;
    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
    (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.
    2(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    OUTDOOR MUSIC FESTIVALS Firearms -- Penalty.

    It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

    Carrying firearms.
    (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.
    • 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.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    An example would be of entering one of the restricted areas provided for in RCW 9.41.050/060/280/300 and RCW 70.108.150 gives an officer RAS to conduct a terry stop as these areas cited below restrict possession with a couple of exceptions.
    I agree an officer would have RAS in the scenarios you gave (school, jail, court) if they see your firearm regardless of if an individual has a CPL though. The difference between walking down the street CC and the scenarios you gave is its unlawful to have the firearm in those scenario location regardless of having a CPL, therefore giving them RAS of a crime. Simply walking around in a place you have right to be and the officer comes to know that you have a concealed firearm does not give him RAS that crime is afoot. IMO, I believe the officer needs RAS to stop and demand your CPL.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    The US Supreme Court has stated in Delaware V Prouse that random stops for a license check, just because it is a licensed activity, is illegal. There must be some other reason to stop you to check for a license.
    Operating a motor vehicle is not a crime. Seeing someone engaged in a non-criminal activity does not generate RAS or PC to assume that a crime is being committed, therefore a stop to check for a valid driver's license is not justified simply by seeing someone driving.

    Concealing a weapon, on the other hand, is a crime. There are exceptions and exemptions that some people might qualify under, but at the end of the day, concealing a weapon is a crime. Unless you duct tape your CPL somewhere prominent, an officer who sees your coat blow open has witnessed a crime being committed. That generates RAS to investigate whether the person who seems to be committing a crime is exempt. If there were no exemptions, then the officer would have PC to make an arrest instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    IMHO: An officer can ask for your CPL, IF, 1: You are CC, and 2 he had reasonable suspician that a crime has been committed by you, or a crime is being committed by you at the time of the detention. That you are CC, and somewhere (like on a city bus) that, if the weapon was loaded, it would require a CPL, is not enough RAS. Why? See Delaware V Prouse, random license checks are not legal. Prouse was operating an automobile, had not done anything (traffic wise) wrong, but he was stopped for a license check. The LEO found MJ in the car, siezed it, and charge Prouse with possession. The US Supreme Court said the evidence was poisoned by the manner it was found and that random license checks for a licensed activity (driving a car in the case of Prouse) are not tolerated under the 4A.
    So if an officer sees a man with a gun inside a convenience store, being handed a bag of money by the clerk, he does not have RAS or PC to intervene, because it's possible the man with the gun is a cash courier, the owner or being paid back for a loan he gave to the clerk? That's absurd.

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    I agree an officer would have RAS in the scenarios you gave (school, jail, court) if they see your firearm regardless of if an individual has a CPL though. The difference between walking down the street CC and the scenarios you gave is its unlawful to have the firearm in those scenario location regardless of having a CPL, therefore giving them RAS of a crime. Simply walking around in a place you have right to be and the officer comes to know that you have a concealed firearm does not give him RAS that crime is afoot. IMO, I believe the officer needs RAS to stop and demand your CPL.
    It depends on what you mean by having a right to be, if it is to be in a park, side walk that have no firearms restrictions then yes I agree.

    If it is this then no, a city having an ordinance prohibiting firearms in their convention center with an exception for those who have a CPL
    RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060;
    and you open carry to an event being held there, an officer or for that matter a person working their have the authority of law to stop and demand your CPL.
    • 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.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Concealing a weapon, on the other hand, is a crime. There are exceptions and exemptions that some people might qualify under, but at the end of the day, concealing a weapon is a crime. Unless you duct tape your CPL somewhere prominent, an officer who sees your coat blow open has witnessed a crime being committed. That generates RAS to investigate whether the person who seems to be committing a crime is exempt. If there were no exemptions, then the officer would have PC to make an arrest instead.
    Having a CPL is not an exemption. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a crime if you have a CPL.

    Written as:
    (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.
    For it to have the meaning that your implying I would expect it to be written as such, with an exceptions list:
    (1)(a) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person, except:
    (i) in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, or
    (ii) if the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol.
    As written, I think its interpreted differently.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    So if an officer sees a man with a gun inside a convenience store, being handed a bag of money by the clerk, he does not have RAS or PC to intervene, because it's possible the man with the gun is a cash courier, the owner or being paid back for a loan he gave to the clerk? That's absurd.
    Agreed there is no RAS nor PC in this scenario, being that open carry along with carrying a bag of money is legal in Washington State.
    • 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.

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    Having a CPL is not an exemption. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a crime if you have a CPL.

    Written as:
    (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.
    For it to have the meaning that your implying I would expect it to be written as such, with an exceptions list:
    (1)(a) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person, except:
    (i) in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, or
    (ii) if the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol.
    As written, I think its interpreted differently.
    Clearly you are not misunderstanding what is written in law but just want to argue.
    By all means you go ahead in life and believe what you are saying, hopefully no one will take your position and find themselves in trouble.

    A CPL is not an exception! Really then why are they here?

    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.[/B]

    RCW 9.41.300 2(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
    • 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.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    A CPL is not an exception! Really then why are they here?
    Its a license. However, I think I am getting out of context here, so ill re-track my stance a little bit.

    An individual can be licensed to carry a concealed firearm.
    It only becomes illegal to possess a concealed firearm when you don't have a license to do so or meet an actual exception.

    The way its written, it does not say its illegal to carry a concealed firearm... period and then go into listing exceptions. Its written such that, its only illegal if your not licensed. Similar to that of driving. Our driving laws aren't written to say driving is illegal period, except if you have a license. One has to assume if your driving, your licensed unless they have RAS to believe otherwise.

    My argument is that its only illegal if you don't have a license, it is assumed that an individual is licensed if they are concealing. The officer must have RAS that you don't have a license to stop you for a violation of 9.41.050 then demand the CPL... The mere notice of concealed firearm is not enough to walk up and demand your license.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 02-14-2013 at 10:19 PM. Reason: spelling/extra
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    • 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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Stevens Wa
    Posts
    26
    To 'display' upon demand if a LEO was to ask is exactly what you should do. To deny a lawful order by LE is a crime. Example given...A LEO tells you to put your hands where he can see them. You don't know why but it is a 'lawful order' and you should comply. You know there is an old saying 'better alive than right'. So go ahead and rock the boat and see how much fun a take down and cavity search is because cops can be ******** if you are too. BTW the RCW states 'display' nowhere does it say surrender so you just have to show the LEO your CPL not hand it to him like a DL. Good luck.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    <snip>In Terry vs Ohio, 4th Amendment case, it was determined that an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is, or about to be committed in order to stop an individual on the street.<snip>
    Remember Article I Sec 7 has far more weight in the state of Washington.

    A good synopsis of this can be found in the law enforcement journals.

    https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/ima...202%202012.pdf
    Live Free or Die!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •