Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Question on RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Washington
    Posts
    20

    Question on RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms

    I'm about 50/50 for Open and Concealed Carry, and I have a question on RCW 9.41.050: Carrying Firearms http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

    Here is section 1(b)
    " (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."

    My question is what do they mean by "any other person"? Obviously you have to carry your CPL any time you are out and about carrying concealed and you have to show the CPL to any LEO "upon demand", but the "any other person" part is vague.

    From what I understand the "when and if required by law to do so" would include any time the CPL is demanded.

    I know I'm pretty tired, but this section just doesn't sound right. Can anyone shed some light on it or point out what I might have missed?
    I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully. - Gandhi

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    The key words are "When and if required by law" now we need to find out when that would be, Hmmm

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    The phrasing may have to do with complying with this: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.075

    I'd assume it was meant to include issuing authority, bailiff, judge, clerk, etc. Vagueness to the nth degree. While I'm far from an expert, I'd say the phrasing should be to LE officer or under court mandate.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaKennedy View Post
    I'm about 50/50 for Open and Concealed Carry, and I have a question on RCW 9.41.050: Carrying Firearms http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

    Here is section 1(b)
    " (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."

    My question is what do they mean by "any other person"? Obviously you have to carry your CPL any time you are out and about carrying concealed and you have to show the CPL to any LEO "upon demand", but the "any other person" part is vague.

    From what I understand the "when and if required by law to do so" would include any time the CPL is demanded.

    I know I'm pretty tired, but this section just doesn't sound right. Can anyone shed some light on it or point out what I might have missed?
    I can only think of one other time you may need to display your CPL to someone that is not LE that would be when you are at a Stadium or Convention Center operated by a City, town or other municipality due to the wording in RCW 9.41.300 that says Cities may restrict the possession of firearms in city owned arenas and stadiums but exempts anyone with a CPL.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I can only think of one other time you may need to display your CPL to someone that is not LE that would be when you are at a Stadium or Convention Center operated by a City, town or other municipality due to the wording in RCW 9.41.300 that says Cities may restrict the possession of firearms in city owned arenas and stadiums but exempts anyone with a CPL.
    Would a bus driver qualify?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

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

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaKennedy View Post
    I'm about 50/50 for Open and Concealed Carry, and I have a question on RCW 9.41.050: Carrying Firearms http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

    Here is section 1(b)
    " (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."

    My question is what do they mean by "any other person"? Obviously you have to carry your CPL any time you are out and about carrying concealed and you have to show the CPL to any LEO "upon demand", but the "any other person" part is vague.

    From what I understand the "when and if required by law to do so" would include any time the CPL is demanded.

    I know I'm pretty tired, but this section just doesn't sound right. Can anyone shed some light on it or point out what I might have missed?
    There may be times required by law. As mentioned by Jeff, and maybe a bus too.

    I say though and others have a different opinion about the officer part. I say it is only required if the officer has PC you are engaged in unlawful activity, a mere check of papers isn't constitutional, unless required by law. Florida's supreme court has ruled effectively the same in Regaldo vs. State.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Would a bus driver qualify?
    I do not think so mainly because they would not know if it was loaded, loaded in or on a vehicle would be the requirement for having a CPL not the mere possession of the firearm. In the case of a City or municipality and a stadium or arena the law states you have to have a CPL to be in possession of a pistol RCW 9.42.300 it makes no mention of openly carried, concealed carried, loaded or unloaded just the mere possession. In the case of riding on a bus one would only need a CPL of it was loaded and or concealed.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I do not think so mainly because they would not know if it was loaded, loaded in or on a vehicle would be the requirement for having a CPL not the mere possession of the firearm. In the case of a City or municipality and a stadium or arena the law states you have to have a CPL to be in possession of a pistol RCW 9.42.300 it makes no mention of openly carried, concealed carried, loaded or unloaded just the mere possession. In the case of riding on a bus one would only need a CPL of it was loaded and or concealed.
    Hmmm thanks for the clarification that makes sense.

    That would go along with how I see the legality of an officer "just checking your papers" thought too. Since there is no discernible way to determine by mere observation. ( A line borrowed from Regaldo v State)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    The phrasing may have to do with complying with this: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.075

    I'd assume it was meant to include issuing authority, bailiff, judge, clerk, etc. Vagueness to the nth degree. While I'm far from an expert, I'd say the phrasing should be to LE officer or under court mandate.
    Also firearms dealer when you buy a handgun (if you want the dealer to do the background check and not an auto delay as the LEO does it.)

  10. #10
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    My personal opinion is that that section is an "artifact" of something, probably passed in 1994, that was declared unconstitutional (as a lot of the 1994 gun laws were).

    There is no specific place you are required "by law" to display you CPL.. No Jeff, not even when you purchase a new pistol. It would be silly to have a CPL and not use it to kill the wait period, but it is not required to obtain a new toy.

    WA constitution, article 1 section 7 gives much greater protection to your personal affairs than the 4A. Unless you are being arrested for a CRIME, there is no reason for LE to even ask for your CPL. Random license checks for a licensed activity are an infringement of the 4A and are illegal per the US Supreme Court in Delaware V Prouse. a1/s7 in WA is even more restrictive on what can be done/demanded by LE.

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I do not think so mainly because they would not know if it was loaded, loaded in or on a vehicle would be the requirement for having a CPL not the mere possession of the firearm. In the case of a City or municipality and a stadium or arena the law states you have to have a CPL to be in possession of a pistol RCW 9.42.300 it makes no mention of openly carried, concealed carried, loaded or unloaded just the mere possession. In the case of riding on a bus one would only need a CPL of it was loaded and or concealed.
    The only difference of opinion here is not knowing it was loaded or not, do we not teach and subscribe to the "all guns are loaded" and what silly goose would carry a gun in a holster with out it being loaded? It would be reasonable to assume the firearm is loaded.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    The only difference of opinion here is not knowing it was loaded or not, do we not teach and subscribe to the "all guns are loaded" and what silly goose would carry a gun in a holster with out it being loaded? It would be reasonable to assume the firearm is loaded.
    But it still is an assumption......and you can not glean by mere observation whether it is or not......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

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

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    There is no specific place you are required "by law" to display you CPL.. No Jeff, not even when you purchase a new pistol. It would be silly to have a CPL and not use it to kill the wait period, but it is not required to obtain a new toy.
    That depends on how you look at it. While you're not required by law to have a CPL to purchase or obtain a firearm, if you want to wave the wait period and have the dealer run the background check, then the law does requires you to show one.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by sirpuma View Post
    That depends on how you look at it. While you're not required by law to have a CPL to purchase or obtain a firearm, if you want to wave the wait period and have the dealer run the background check, then the law does requires you to show one.
    All I wanted to point out is, there is no current requirement where a RCW states: "In (this circumstance) you must present you CPL on demand."

    In Oregon there is such a statement where in ORS 166.360-380 it states if you are in a "public building", (as defined in 360) you must present your CHL to LE "on demand".

    I'm pretty sure Lowry had some of that in his cockeyed gun control legislation back in 1994, and I am also pretty sure the courts threw those sections out because they were contrary to Article 1 Section 7. That is why I stated that I think it is an artifact linked to some RCW that no longer exists.

  15. #15
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    The key words are "When and if required by law" now we need to find out when that would be, Hmmm
    To my knowledge there is no written code that states when that is. I found (unpublished) in the appellate records in State v Giles:

    Officer Crivello made the statutorily authorized 'demand' to
    see Giles's permit.
    And once Giles admitted that he had no such permit (in contrast to not
    having his permit on his person), Officer Crivello had a reasonable
    suspicion that Giles was committing a crime and, thus, had a basis to
    briefly detain him to investigate. See RCW 9.41.810; State v. Kennedy, 107
    Wn.2d 1, 4, 6-7, 726 P.2d 445 (1986). Even if the question about Giles's
    felony history constituted a seizure, which we do not here decide, Officer
    Crivello had a valid basis to conduct one.
    The superior court properly denied the motion to suppress.
    IV. Effective Assistance of Counsel
    Giles also argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective
    assistance for failing to seek suppression of the evidence based on his
    claim that Officer Crivello illegally seized him by asking for his
    concealed gun permit and asking whether he had felony convictions. This
    argument fails.
    As we explain above, Officer Crivello's questions did not constitute
    an illegal seizure. Trial counsel's failure to raise a losing issue was
    not deficient; nor did it prejudice Giles's case. Thus, Giles has failed
    to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Bowerman, 115
    Wn.2d 794, 808, 802 P.2d 116 (1990) (claim of ineffective assistance fails
    without a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice).
    Affirmed.



    What is interesting is that there is really no ascertainable statute or code that specifies when required by law, they cannot find guilty.

    Here's a video of a court case that has similarities, the city did not show what the standards for helmets were and therefore were unable to pinpoint what a "helmet" was. (The guy has a 3 inch disc on his head.) Likewise in Washington, if there is no law that says when and if, then there is no when and if.
    (the end of part 2 and the verdict are the significant ones.)
    Pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK0XFXT0zwA
    Pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc-MLplBGtQ
    Verdict http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D36fLHYA63w

  16. #16
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    I spent a fair bit of time today researching this question (which struck me as probably a lot more interesting than it should have, considering the number of cases I read). I read every reported case (including the unpublished ones) looking for even one example that involved someone other than LEO requesting to see the license. There isn't one that I could find. Even Giles involved a request by LEO. Although Giles is a published case, only the part about sentencing made it to the official report (not all of the gun stuff found by 509rifas).

    Interesting question that I don't think has been decided by a court.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I spent a fair bit of time today researching this question............................
    We don't pay you enough. Let's raise that Man's salary.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  18. #18
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    We don't pay you enough. Let's raise that Man's salary.
    Name:  thumbsup2.gif
Views: 151
Size:  3.9 KB
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

Posting Permissions

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