Requirement to show CPL when concealed carrying?

slapmonkay said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

As written, I think its interpreted differently.

Click to expand...

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

BigDave said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

slapmonkay said:

<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>

Click to expand...

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/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current through August 2 2012.pdf

Glad to see this topic being discussed again.

Most of what we are discussing is suppostion based on events that may or may not occur. concealed carry is not "illegal" it is regulated and becomes an illegal act if you dont follow the regulations.

As others have noted the courts on many occasions have made it clear that LEOs cannot just up and demand ID for anything they want for any reason they want. Terry V Ohio of course is well known to us and is the high water mark. however other cases like DeBerry and Prouse show us that ther must be RAS of a crime FIRST and that simple lawful activity, even with a firearm CANNOT be used to instigate a lawful terry stop. hence the caviot in the RCW "when and if required by law to do so"

In as much as an officer cannot legally walk up to me and demand ID he cannot simply walk up to me and demand my CPL, not knowing if i have a CC weapon. if my coat were to fly open like the example given, he can simply ask if i have a CPL. an answer in the affirmative would be all that is required by law to make the act lawful and therefore not acceptable as a reason for a terry stop.

If the officer presses the issue after the fact then it moves into the realm of litigation against said officer.

gogodawgs said:

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/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current through August 2 2012.pdf

Click to expand...

Schlepnier said:

Glad to see this topic being discussed again.

Most of what we are discussing is suppostion based on events that may or may not occur. concealed carry is not "illegal" it is regulated and becomes an illegal act if you dont follow the regulations.

As others have noted the courts on many occasions have made it clear that LEOs cannot just up and demand ID for anything they want for any reason they want. Terry V Ohio of course is well known to us and is the high water mark. however other cases like DeBerry and Prouse show us that ther must be RAS of a crime FIRST and that simple lawful activity, even with a firearm CANNOT be used to instigate a lawful terry stop. hence the caviot in the RCW "when and if required by law to do so"

In as much as an officer cannot legally walk up to me and demand ID he cannot simply walk up to me and demand my CPL, not knowing if i have a CC weapon. if my coat were to fly open like the example given, he can simply ask if i have a CPL. an answer in the affirmative would be all that is required by law to make the act lawful and therefore not acceptable as a reason for a terry stop.

If the officer presses the issue after the fact then it moves into the realm of litigation against said officer.

Click to expand...

Yep, contrary to statist opinions, possessing a license and making a a license a requirement for certain activities does not automatically or constitutionally allow them to have the right to demand our papers when seeing you engage in that activity.

Driving a car is not a crime, without a license it is, they cannot randomly pull you over to check because they see you possibly breaking the law, RS or PC must be present.

Concealing is not a crime, without papers it is, the same rules apply.

FloridaSupreme court has a similar law as ours and they ruled.

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009


"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."

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]




The fact that this discussion is even happening is proof that the law is void for vagueness. If we cannot be 100% clear about the nature, limits, and activities require or prohibited by a law then the law is void for vagueness. That being said.

The OP had it right when he pointed out the fact the lack of a statute defining a requirement to produce a CPL. WHEN AND IF required by law...
That statement in and of itself is not a requirement. I gave an example in another thread by using similar wording from a federal law on a different topic.

I guess I need to write to my state rep and ask him/her to inquire with the AG's office of they know of any statute making a requirement. The AG's office has not answered the question when I have asked. Also no lawyer on this forum has chimed in with any statute providing for a requirement to display.

It can be found for your DRIVER'S LICENSE but never for your DRIVER LICENSE.

Freedom1Man said:

when and if required by law to do so. .

Click to expand...

I do beleive this is a 1994 artifact. Lowry and Co passed a real piece of "stuff" firearms law back in 1994. Most of it is now gone because of teh courts or subsiquent legislative action. I cannot tell you why, but back then sometime..in the back of my mind..they did have a specific requirement to present your CPL on demand...but the courts threw it out...

Just my old memory, not positive, but I think that is when. (I've been carrying and watching WA state law evlove since 1970, so I could be wrong)

gogodawgs said:

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/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current through August 2 2012.pdf

Click to expand...

I agree. See the two sentences around the part you quoted . I am guessing you were just using the post as a channel to expand on what I was saying.

slapmonkay said:

...

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.

...

Click to expand...

slapmonkay said:

I agree. See the two sentences around the part you quoted . I am guessing you were just using the post as a channel to expand on what I was saying.

Click to expand...

gogodawgs said:

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/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current through August 2 2012.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes, I was just providing a cite.

hermannr said:

I do beleive this is a 1994 artifact. Lowry and Co passed a real piece of "stuff" firearms law back in 1994. Most of it is now gone because of teh courts or subsiquent legislative action. I cannot tell you why, but back then sometime..in the back of my mind..they did have a specific requirement to present your CPL on demand...but the courts threw it out...

Just my old memory, not positive, but I think that is when. (I've been carrying and watching WA state law evlove since 1970, so I could be wrong)

Click to expand...

So there was a requirement at one time.

The way I read it, unlike the laws related to operating an automobile without a license (which describe what is unlawful, and then provide affirmative defenses to that conduct), RCW 9.41 provisions that exclude culpability for display, use, carrying, etc. of firearms (e.g., .050, .060 and .270) provide that the display, etc. of firearms is lawful at the onset. That is, the provisions for carrying "in ones place of abode or fixed place of business" do not provide an affirmative defense to the display, carrying, etc. of a firearm, but instead make that display, carrying, etc. lawful from the get-go (the legal term is ab initio). This is a significant distinction in criminal prosecutions. So, to attempt to analyze the laws of display, carrying, etc. of firearms to the laws regarding operating automobiles is inapposite.

Delaware v. Prouse is inapposite to Washington firearms laws (and is, as well, precedent only in Delaware and nowhere else).

Of course, not having a CPL, and not having a CPL on one's person are two completely different animals. Carrying a concealed weapon without a CPL is a crime:


But, carrying a concealed weapon without one's issued CPL on one's person is only an infration, similar to a traffic ticket. Several times I've managed to get out of the house without my CPL, (I many times carry a concealed BUG while I OC my primary weapon), and I don't worry all that much about it. It's expensive, but not that big a deal (Max fine $250).

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.

(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.

Click to expand...

rapgood said:

Delaware v. Prouse is inapposite to Washington firearms laws (and is, as well, precedent only in Delaware and nowhere else).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I must disagree with you again...the case was decided buy the US Supreme Court, and therefor effects all states'

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/case.html

hermannr said:

Unfortunately I must disagree with you again...the case was decided buy the US Supreme Court, and therefor effects all states'

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/case.html

Click to expand...

The wording of the law indicates that not displaying when required by law is a crime, however there has not been any law shown here that creates any requirement to display.

Please, someone show the connecting law.

Freedom1Man said:

The wording of the law indicates that not displaying when required by law is a crime, however there has not been any law shown here that creates any requirement to display.

Please, someone show the connecting law.

Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Now that is funny

BigDave said:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Now that is funny

Click to expand...

I learned to watch for those things while studying the Internal Revenue Code.