Case law update from your friendly prosecutor

sudden valley gunner · Feb 15, 2014

Ajetpilot said:
Not having your CPL with you when required is only a class 1 civil infraction, not even a misdemeanor. The nice LEO will only write you a ticket. The fine (if you are caught) is only $250. So, if for instance you are open carrying a loaded pistol while driving, and you suddenly remember that you have left your wallet at home, don't sweat it.

Thanks for the reminder. And without RAS or PC one could more than likely get the infraction thrown out.

40grit · Feb 16, 2014

Infractions

sudden valley gunner said:
Thanks for the reminder. And without RAS or PC one could more than likely get the infraction thrown out.

But you will have to positively identify your self to get that civil infraction.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 16, 2014

40grit said:
But you will have to positively identify your self to get that civil infraction.

They can take you to the station to ID you if you refuse.

There is no requirement to carry ID, but ID'ing yourself isn't the same thing.

arentol · Feb 16, 2014

CT Barfly said:
How is this ambiguous?

1. you must have your license on you
2. must display it to LEO/other persons on demand WHEN AND IF REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO

The problem is that you have to go way out of your way to make the second half of the highlighted sentence mean anything at all. There are two possible interpretations:

Simple reading interpretation:
When read as simply as possible (which is how laws are supposed to be written and read) there is no requirement to ever display your license to anyone. It says that you shall DISPLAY the license "...when and if required by law to do so". Okay, so which law requires you to DISPLAY the license? There are plenty of laws that require you to HAVE the license, but there is absolutely NO other law that I know of that requires you to display your license. This is the only one that mentions displaying it, but this one doesn't actually require you to do so. So the entire thing is an endless self-referential circle that doesn't ever go anywhere, and so you don't have to display your license ever.

Complex reading interpretation:
The only way to interpret this law to say that you ever have to display your license is if you assume that "...when and if required by law to do so." is in reference to the first half of the sentence "...have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession..." and not in reference to what immediately proceeds it "...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person...". However, that is not how English normally works, so we are basically pulling that interpretation out of our backsides in order to avoid the second half of the sentence having no purpose at all.

As Right Wing Wacko said, it is a "...poorly worded piece of law...". We know what was intended, but that is NOT what was written at all, and we have to do language contortions to interpret it to say what it was meant to say.

Right Wing Wacko · Feb 16, 2014

arentol said:
The problem is that you have to go way out of your way to make the second half of the highlighted sentence mean anything at all. There are two possible interpretations:

Simple reading interpretation:
When read as simply as possible (which is how laws are supposed to be written and read) there is no requirement to ever display your license to anyone. It says that you shall DISPLAY the license "...when and if required by law to do so". Okay, so which law requires you to DISPLAY the license? There are plenty of laws that require you to HAVE the license, but there is absolutely NO other law that I know of that requires you to display your license. This is the only one that mentions displaying it, but this one doesn't actually require you to do so. So the entire thing is an endless self-referential circle that doesn't ever go anywhere, and so you don't have to display your license ever.

Complex reading interpretation:
The only way to interpret this law to say that you ever have to display your license is if you assume that "...when and if required by law to do so." is in reference to the first half of the sentence "...have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession..." and not in reference to what immediately proceeds it "...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person...". However, that is not how English normally works, so we are basically pulling that interpretation out of our backsides in order to avoid the second half of the sentence having no purpose at all.

As Right Wing Wacko said, it is a "...poorly worded piece of law...". We know what was intended, but that is NOT what was written at all, and we have to do language contortions to interpret it to say what it was meant to say.

More importantly, do we know what a Judge will say it means? Some courts go out of their way to twist laws the way they want to see them.

OC for ME · Feb 17, 2014

...or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

What other person, and when? That is about the most idiotic "legal requirement" I have ever read.

arentol · Feb 17, 2014

OC for ME said:
What other person, and when? That is about the most idiotic "legal requirement" I have ever read.

See, that is another problem. If we use the complex interpretation then you have to display your license to anyone at all who asks anytime you are required to have it, meaning any time you are carrying concealed. I doubt that is what was intended, so now neither of the possible interpretations seem to be what was intended. The law is written almost as badly a humanly possible without just being entirely random words in random order.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Geerolla · Feb 17, 2014

arentol said:
See, that is another problem. If we use the complex interpretation then you have to display your license to anyone at all who asks anytime you are required to have it, meaning any time you are carrying concealed. I doubt that is what was intended, so now neither of the possible interpretations seem to be what was intended. The law is written almost as badly a humanly possible without just being entirely random words in random order.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Unless you're suspected of breaking the law, you don't even have to present it to LEO... so why would this be true? An instance might be if you're carrying in a convention center where the municipality has outlawed carry, but permit holders are still allowed due to state law. You would need to present your CPL in this situation, most likely to management or security, to prove you aren't breaking the law.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

sudden valley gunner · Feb 17, 2014

Geerolla said:
Unless you're suspected of breaking the law, you don't even have to present it to LEO... so why would this be true? An instance might be if you're carrying in a convention center where the municipality has outlawed carry, but permit holders are still allowed due to state law. You would need to present your CPL in this situation, most likely to management or security, to prove you aren't breaking the law.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

That is the clarification and the point of this whole thread. The judges decision and new case law assures those of us that insisted it didn't give carte blanch authority. The way the law is written itself with its wiggle room some assumed it gave broader powers.

Jered · Feb 19, 2014

Geerolla said:
So let me make sure I'm reading this correctly in regards to concealed carry. If I'm walking down the street, bend over to pick up my dog's **** and accidentally print or show the bottom of my holster while a cop is driving by they cannot assume I'm unlicensed and initiate a stop to check my CPL? Is that correct or is this only in reference to MWAG calls?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In this situation, wouldn't RCW 9.41.060 apply, specifically:

RCW 9.41.060
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:

(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;

The phrase "such as," implies it isn't just limited to those sorts of activities.

I thought I'd throw this grenade in there.

Freedom1Man · Feb 19, 2014

Right Wing Wacko said:
I've also seen it explained as:

1. You must have your license on you.

No quibble there .

2. You must display it to any LEO on demand.

Demand, is the operative word there, not request, and then when does the law give the officer the authority to DEMAND the CPL? Please cite.

3. You must display it to other persons when and if required by law to do so.

So, who is the "other persons" and when is it ever "required by law"? Please cite.

I can see both versions in there depending on how you parse the sentence.

Can you really see it now?

Freedom1Man · Feb 19, 2014

Geerolla said:
Unless you're suspected of breaking the law, you don't even have to [strike]present[/strike] it to LEO... so why would this be true? An instance might be if you're carrying in a convention center where the municipality has outlawed carry, but permit holders are still allowed due to state law. You would need to [strike]present[/strike] your CPL in this situation, most likely to management or security, to prove you aren't breaking the law.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

DISPLAY is the word I am sure that you meant.

Freedom1Man · Feb 19, 2014

Grim_Night said:
Basically what it means is that if an activity is lawful to do with or without a license then it must be assumed that the person preforming such activity (baring any other evidence) is preforming said activity lawfully. Just like you cannot be stopped while driving your car just to make sure you are driving with a valid license. There has to be evidence that something else is going on besides the lawful activity.

Not true in Washington anymore. If your license get's yanked and the car is registered to you, that is PC for a stop and check.

countryclubjoe · Jun 22, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
Not true in Washington anymore. If your license get's yanked and the car is registered to you, that is PC for a stop

and check.

So one needs permission to get permission..

ccj

sudden valley gunner · Jun 22, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
So one needs permission to get permission..

ccj

Yes and no. You are broke say because economy collapses and your ex just took your kids, house, and money. You miss a few bloated demeaning payments and the state yanks your license. They don't need to inform you like they do with most any other time they yank your license (Redmond vs Moore) according to the non justices in power. They then hinder your ability to work and pay in addition to tacking on fees for reinstatement, also the huge fines for driving with a suspended license, because how do you find out? By them running your plates and arresting you on the side of the road. Great eh?

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 22, 2014

Ajetpilot said:
Not having your CPL with you when required is only a class 1 civil infraction, not even a misdemeanor. The nice LEO will only write you a ticket. The fine (if you are caught) is only $250. So, if for instance you are open carrying a loaded pistol while driving, and you suddenly remember that you have left your wallet at home, don't sweat it.

Here's one of them 'In MY state' posts, but I hope everyone will forgive me for straying just a bit from the topic.
We've recently passed a law which makes being caught without your Georgia Weapon License the equivalent of being caught without your Georgia Drivers License; if it can be produced in court, the fine is a $10 'don't do that ag'in, y'hear?' slap on the wrist.

Someone might consider pushing for the same equivalency in Washington.

countryclubjoe · Jun 23, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Yes and no. You are broke say because economy collapses and your ex just took your kids, house, and money. You miss a few bloated demeaning payments and the state yanks your license. They don't need to inform you like they do with most any other time they yank your license (Redmond vs Moore) according to the non justices in power. They then hinder your ability to work and pay in addition to tacking on fees for reinstatement, also the huge fines for driving with a suspended license, because how do you find out? By them running your plates and arresting you on the side of the road. Great eh?

Hello SVD

Kind of makes one wonder, what would the State suspend/take/steal from a citizen, if said citizen had no DL? Gun permit, hunting license? I would say anything licensed by the G would be up for grabs. As you are well aware,
I have long argued that doing business with the State in the form of purchasing a DL by a citizen for non-commercial use, does in fact give the state some type of authority over said citizen. Think of the gall the State is exercising. A citizen misses a couple/few court ordered payments( I trust this issue is a family court issue?) and has or should have no bearing on a driver licensing issue. The question is, where is the due process in this scenario? The answer, there is none.

Purchasing a Government issued license/permit is the start of having ones liberties slowing taking away.

My .02

SVD, always a pleasure hearing from you and reading you're post.

Best regards.

CCJ

sudden valley gunner · Jun 23, 2014

Yep no due process at all. No justice at all. They don't care because it isn't about justice to the powers that be.

I think the state licensing programs are all bull, from Marriage to driving to business. It has nothing to do with what the reasons they tell the public.

Freedom1Man · Jun 23, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Yep no due process at all. No justice at all. They don't care because it isn't about justice to the powers that be.

I think the state licensing programs are all bull, from Marriage to driving to business. It has nothing to do with what the reasons they tell the public.

No kidding, it's all about control and the general population is too stupid to realize it.

countryclubjoe · Jun 23, 2014

The State understands that most citizens value privileges and not rights.

In the words of H.L Mencken " What men value in this world is not rights but privileges".

I say the time has come to walk out of the shadow of states rights and into the sunlight of human rights. Hubert H. Humphrey

Licensing, public safety, Good of the community... State terms that violate liberties.

My .02

Regards.

CCJ

Case law update from your friendly prosecutor

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member