Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Question about OC and CC

  1. #1
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248

    Question about OC and CC

    Being that you don't need a permit to open carry here, I have a question? If you go to a business and they ask that you cover your firearm while at there business. If you do not have a Concealed license would you be breaking the law, even though you are on private property and asked by the owner or management to conceal.

    I ask because I have a friend here with me and his concealed license is not honored in Washington.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    130
    Yes you would be as although it's private property it's open to the public. Another thing you want to watch out for is loaded travel in a motorized vehicle as that requires a CPL in this state. Keeping the chamber empty and removing the magazine from the gun will keep you legal in a vehicle.
    WTT: Glock 27 for Glock 26

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    Being that you don't need a permit to open carry here, I have a question? If you go to a business and they ask that you cover your firearm while at there business. If you do not have a Concealed license would you be breaking the law, even though you are on private property and asked by the owner or management to conceal.

    I ask because I have a friend here with me and his concealed license is not honored in Washington.
    By the RCW's it appears yes, by the constitution no.

    I my self don't see how the state can tell someone how to carry on private property.
    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)

  4. #4
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,991
    You want me to cover my gun? OK, it will also cover my wallet - bye!
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Thank you for the help. And I do know about the load car carry. But I have a Washington non resident permit. I got it as soon as they drop reciprocity with Florida.

  6. #6
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    You want me to cover my gun? OK, it will also cover my wallet - bye!
    I agree with you and with that said I have never had any issues with oc here in Washington. Just wanted to find out so if we did go somewhere that asked to cover up if my friend would be in violation of law. I thought being on private property it would be OK but it appears not to be.

  7. #7
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    I agree with you and with that said I have never had any issues with oc here in Washington. Just wanted to find out so if we did go somewhere that asked to cover up if my friend would be in violation of law. I thought being on private property it would be OK but it appears not to be.
    It is, but it isn't.

    You have to understand that the law basically recognizes two types of "private" property.

    1. Privately held property open to the general public, and
    2. Privately held property NOT open to the general public

    For the purposes of firearms law in Washington state, privately held property open to use by the general public is considered "in public".

    Private property that is NOT open to use by the general public (The term "Place of Abode" is used in the RCWs to further narrow the allowance) is considered private. If you were lawfully "aboding in" a given place, you may conceal. Abode is not defined in the RCWs to my knowledge, so we have to use the common definition, which is not quite as restrictive as recognizing only YOUR house, but also not quite as forgiving as allowing you to claim you "abode" just anywhere.

    As an example, claiming to abode in a hotel room or a friends home would be a reasonable use. Claiming to abode in a makeshift shelter in a park, or in your car in a parking lot, probably would not be considered to be a reasonable use by the courts, but I am not a lawyer, those are just my educated opinions.

    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    It is, but it isn't.

    You have to understand that the law basically recognizes two types of "private" property.

    1. Privately held property open to the general public, and
    2. Privately held property NOT open to the general public

    For the purposes of firearms law in Washington state, privately held property open to use by the general public is considered "in public".

    Private property that is NOT open to use by the general public (The term "Place of Abode" is used in the RCWs to further narrow the allowance) is considered private. If you were lawfully "aboding in" a given place, you may conceal. Abode is not defined in the RCWs to my knowledge, so we have to use the common definition, which is not quite as restrictive as recognizing only YOUR house, but also not quite as forgiving as allowing you to claim you "abode" just anywhere.

    As an example, claiming to abode in a hotel room or a friends home would be a reasonable use. Claiming to abode in a makeshift shelter in a park, or in your car in a parking lot, probably would not be considered to be a reasonable use by the courts, but I am not a lawyer, those are just my educated opinions.
    Thank you for the help. I saw the law you quoted but was unsure about the fixed place of business. But I understand now it means you have to own the business.

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    Thank you for the help. I saw the law you quoted but was unsure about the fixed place of business. But I understand now it means you have to own the business.
    Not necessarily.

    My understanding of "In the Person's Fixed Place of Business" also covers employees. This would, for example, apply to a gas station attendant, while within the gas station. This would NOT apply to say...a UPS driver who spends most of his day in his delivery truck...since the delivery truck is not "fixed".

    You would probably want your employer's permission to carry to prevent being fired if found out, but my understanding of the law is that it would NOT be a crime to conceal without a permit in your "fixed place of business" even if your employer didn't give consent.

    As an example of an exception that "fixed place of business" covers...

    RCW 9.41.300
    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:
    <SNIP>
    (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
    <SNIP>
    (10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Just got my haircut. They put a black robe around me and suddenly the "law" was broken. It is silly.

    Hmmmm maybe black robes make people special.....lol....
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    <snip>
    Private property that is NOT open to use by the general public (The term "Place of Abode" is used in the RCWs to further narrow the allowance) is considered private. If you were lawfully "aboding in" a given place, you may conceal. Abode is not defined in the RCWs to my knowledge, so we have to use the common definition, which is not quite as restrictive as recognizing only YOUR house, but also not quite as forgiving as allowing you to claim you "abode" just anywhere.

    As an example, claiming to abode in a hotel room or a friends home would be a reasonable use. Claiming to abode in a makeshift shelter in a park, or in your car in a parking lot, probably would not be considered to be a reasonable use by the courts, but I am not a lawyer, those are just my educated opinions.
    A tent has qualified as an "abode" for the purposes of the RCWs and U.S. and Washington Constitutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    My understanding of "In the Person's Fixed Place of Business" also covers employees. This would, for example, apply to a gas station attendant, while within the gas station. This would NOT apply to say...a UPS driver who spends most of his day in his delivery truck...since the delivery truck is not "fixed".

    You would probably want your employer's permission to carry to prevent being fired if found out, but my understanding of the law is that it would NOT be a crime to conceal without a permit in your "fixed place of business" even if your employer didn't give consent.
    That's a fairly accurate interpretation.

    The Washington Legislature did not define “place of abode” used in RCW 9.41.270. In the absence of a statutory definition, the words used are given their ordinary and usual meaning. State v. Forrester, 21 Wn. App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978). The ordinary meaning of “abode” is “one’s home, place of dwelling, residence, and/or domicile.” Black's Law Dictionary 7 (6th ed. 1990); Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary 4 (1995). Nor did the Legislature define “dwelling.” The ordinary meaning of “dwelling” is “[t]he house or other structure in which a person or persons live; a residence; abode; habituation; the apartment of building or group of buildings, occupied by a family as a place of residence. … In criminal law, [it] means a building or portion thereof … which is intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.” Black's Law Dictionary 7 (6th ed. 1990) ; Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary 439 (1995)

    (All dictionary links are to online versions, which differ slightly from the printed versions quoted as authorities, above.)
    Last edited by rapgood; 08-11-2014 at 01:55 PM.
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    A tent has qualified as an "abode" for the purposes of the RCWs and U.S. and Washington Constitutions.
    I figured, but wonder how far the concept of "tent" can be stretched in that definition.

    You would probably know better, but I kinda doubt a few rocks, tree branches and a tarp in a city or even a state park would be considered an abode by the courts, even if it is in a park that doesn't ban transient shelters.

    Perhaps it would require more than just the shelter itself to help it qualify, such as the presence of other amenities or signs of intent to make an "abode"? Perhaps it would hinge on how private (closed off from the public) that the shelter is made?

    Nice to see you rapgood!
    Last edited by FMCDH; 08-12-2014 at 11:28 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    I figured, but wonder how far the concept of "tent" can be stretched in that definition.

    You would probably know better, but I kinda doubt a few rocks, tree branches and a tarp in a city or even a state park would be considered an abode by the courts, even if it is in a park that doesn't ban transient shelters.

    Perhaps it would require more than just the shelter itself to help it qualify, such as the presence of other amenities or signs of intent to make an "abode"? Perhaps it would hinge on how private (closed off from the public) that the shelter is made?

    Nice to see you rapgood!
    You pose two questions, each of which has (possibly) a different answer.

    Typically, the courts will look to the "intent" of the occupier to ascertain whether the situs is an abode.

    Generally, for purposes of "search and seizure," the courts will look to how readily apparent the contents of the situs are exposed to or hidden from plain view. The more hidden, the more the courts are going to view the situs as being an area where the resident has an expectation of privacy, regardless of how long the occupier intends to occupy the situs.

    For purposes of RCW 9.41.270, the courts are likely to look at how "permanent" the situs appears to be in determining whether it qualifies as an "abode." A weekend tent erection is probably much less likely to be deemed an abode, whereas a summer-long tent erection will better lend itself to be deemed an abode. This may, however, be a more fluid determination if the occupier of the tent has no other residence, even if the tent is moved on a periodic basis (e.g., tent "cities" that have moved around the Seattle area over the past few years). Such determination is most likely to be made on a case-by-case basis and is likely very fact-specific.

    Again, in most cases, a court will probably endeavor to determine the intent of the occupier.
    Last edited by rapgood; 08-12-2014 at 12:58 PM.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    You pose two questions, each of which has (possibly) a different answer.

    Typically, the courts will look to the "intent" of the occupier to ascertain whether the situs is an abode.

    Generally, for purposes of "search and seizure," the courts will look to how readily apparent the contents of the situs are exposed to or hidden from plain view. The more hidden, the more the courts are going to view the situs as being an area where the resident has an expectation of privacy, regardless of how long the occupier intends to occupy the situs.

    For purposes of RCW 9.41.270, the courts are likely to look at how "permanent" the situs appears to be in determining whether it qualifies as an "abode." A weekend tent erection is probably much less likely to be deemed an abode, whereas a summer-long tent erection will better lend itself to be deemed an abode. This may, however, be a more fluid determination if the occupier of the tent has no other residence, even if the tent is moved on a periodic basis (e.g., tent "cities" that have moved around the Seattle area over the past few years). Such determination is most likely to be made on a case-by-case basis and is likely very fact-specific.

    Again, in most cases, a court will probably endeavor to determine the intent of the occupier.
    Nice clarification, thanks!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    You pose two questions, each of which has (possibly) a different answer.

    For purposes of RCW 9.41.270, the courts are likely to look at how "permanent" the situs appears to be in determining whether it qualifies as an "abode." A weekend tent erection is probably much less likely to be deemed an abode, whereas a summer-long tent erection will better lend itself to be deemed an abode. This may, however, be a more fluid determination if the occupier of the tent has no other residence, even if the tent is moved on a periodic basis (e.g., tent "cities" that have moved around the Seattle area over the past few years). Such determination is most likely to be made on a case-by-case basis and is likely very fact-specific.

    Again, in most cases, a court will probably endeavor to determine the intent of the occupier.


    A weekend tent erection is probably much more likely to fall under another exemption (outdoor activity), however I believe it would qualify as both.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Wing Wacko View Post
    A weekend tent erection is probably much more likely to fall under another exemption (outdoor activity), however I believe it would qualify as both.
    If it lasts longer than four hours, should the tenant call a doctor?

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    no rush to the ER for immediate assistance...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    If it lasts longer than four hours, should the tenant call a doctor?
    that didn't take long... lol
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  19. #19
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    No one caught the "in-tent" double entendre. Sigh...
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    just to add a little bit of "has nothing to do with anything whatsoever," even Commifornia allows for tents to be included as a dwelling: "Any person over the age of 18 who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, and if otherwise lawful, may keep and carry a firearm or have a firearm loaded at his or her place of residence, temporary residence, campsite, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the person." http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...df/Cfl2007.pdf

  21. #21
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    No one caught the "in-tent" double entendre. Sigh...
    <FACEPALM>

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    I figured, but wonder how far the concept of "tent" can be stretched in that definition.

    You would probably know better, but I kinda doubt a few rocks, tree branches and a tarp in a city or even a state park would be considered an abode by the courts, even if it is in a park that doesn't ban transient shelters.

    Perhaps it would require more than just the shelter itself to help it qualify, such as the presence of other amenities or signs of intent to make an "abode"? Perhaps it would hinge on how private (closed off from the public) that the shelter is made?

    Nice to see you rapgood!
    I did learn today, by reading the jury instructions, that, at least in Seattle, a vehicle is considered to be a building.

    Go figure.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I did learn today, by reading the jury instructions, that, at least in Seattle, a vehicle is considered to be a building.

    Go figure.
    Funny thing... My "new" conversion van since it is set up for camping inside the van could be classified as a mobile residence. I have food, water, sleeping accommodation as well as restroom facilities. :P So I guess that means I do not need a CPL when I am inside my one vehicle.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    Funny thing... My "new" conversion van since it is set up for camping inside the van could be classified as a mobile residence. I have food, water, sleeping accommodation as well as restroom facilities. :P So I guess that means I do not need a CPL when I am inside my one vehicle.
    That's how I read the law. However, to be in an abundance of caution, I would either 1) have a CPL when doing so, or 2) have the weapon unloaded when the vehicle is in motion. Better to err on the side of caution than to have to argue it in court.

    Just my $.02
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member wittmeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Castle, Va
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    If it lasts longer than four hours, should the tenant call a doctor?
    No...but maybe his nurse

Posting Permissions

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