• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

RCW 9.41.050

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave,

Regarding the original question about:

or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.
Clearly this can't apply to the firearms-sale situation, as in that case the CPL hold can simply not show his CPL and wait the waiting period.

But what I'm wondering about is whether this provision was originally meant as a placeholder for any future must-show-permit requirement that might be added elsewhere in the RCW.

E.g. say the legislature added to the section on school carry (9.41.280) the requirement to show your permit on demand to any school official, when carrying under one of the exceptions in that section, but neglected to add this requirement to 9.41.050 1(b), which read only "shall display the same upon demand to any police officer". Now there would be a conflict between the two sections of the RCW. By including the addition phrase "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so" they are preventing that situation from occurring.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
Dave,

Regarding the original question about:

or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.
Clearly this can't apply to the firearms-sale situation, as in that case the CPL hold can simply not show his CPL and wait the waiting period.

But what I'm wondering about is whether this provision was originally meant as a placeholder for any future must-show-permit requirement that might be added elsewhere in the RCW.

E.g. say the legislature added to the section on school carry (9.41.280) the requirement to show your permit on demand to any school official, when carrying under one of the exceptions in that section, but neglected to add this requirement to 9.41.050 1(b), which read only "shall display the same upon demand to any police officer". Now there would be a conflict between the two sections of the RCW. By including the addition phrase "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so" they are preventing that situation from occurring.

Clearly it does apply. The purchaser is required under law to produce a valid CPL to a dealer if the purchaser wishes to have the 5 day wait negated. There are other options that are statutorily available to the buyer so it is not required to complete the sale and take deliver at a later date, only if he wishes to take it home the same day.

The provision may very well be a placeholder as the legislators that drafted the law may have been thinking about future needs, or it was just to cover thier butts because they did not want to do research to see if there was another statute that required a CPL holder to show his license. Regardless if it is required by law to show your CPL then there is obviously another RCW giving you the requirement to show it so it makes that statementnull and void anyway.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
kparker wrote:
Dave,

Regarding the original question about:

or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.
Clearly this can't apply to the firearms-sale situation, as in that case the CPL hold can simply not show his CPL and wait the waiting period.

But what I'm wondering about is whether this provision was originally meant as a placeholder for any future must-show-permit requirement that might be added elsewhere in the RCW.

E.g. say the legislature added to the section on school carry (9.41.280) the requirement to show your permit on demand to any school official, when carrying under one of the exceptions in that section, but neglected to add this requirement to 9.41.050 1(b), which read only "shall display the same upon demand to any police officer". Now there would be a conflict between the two sections of the RCW. By including the addition phrase "or to any other person when and if required by law to do so" they are preventing that situation from occurring.

Clearly it does apply. The purchaser is required under law to produce a valid CPL to a dealer if the purchaser wishes to have the 5 day wait negated. There are other options that are statutorily available to the buyer so it is not required to complete the sale and take deliver at a later date, only if he wishes to take it home the same day.

The provision may very well be a placeholder as the legislators that drafted the law may have been thinking about future needs, or it was just to cover thier butts because they did not want to do research to see if there was another statute that required a CPL holder to show his license. Regardless if it is required by law to show your CPL then there is obviously another RCW giving you the requirement to show it so it makes that statementnull and void anyway.
And if the purchaser opts for the 5 day waiting period it DOES NOT apply and the over rides your reasoning. There is no requirement to show unless YOU, the purchaserchoose to do so and that makes it a non-requirement.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear the buyer is required to show it under law by section 1(a) but not required under 1(b) or 1(c). You are trying to read it as a whole and not independant pieces that make up the code. Like I said before if the buyer wishes to forego the 5 day wait he is required by section 1(a) to provide a valid CPL. If the buyer does not wish to forego the wait then he is not required to produce a valid CPL because the buyer is opting to comply with section 1(b) or 1(c).
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Bear the buyer is required to show it under law by section 1(a) but not required under 1(b) or 1(c). You are trying to read it as a whole and not independant pieces that make up the code. Like I said before if the buyer wishes to forego the 5 day wait he is required by section 1(a) to provide a valid CPL. If the buyer does not wish to forego the wait then he is not required to produce a valid CPL because the buyer is opting to comply with section 1(b) or 1(c).
Hence by your own words the buyer is not required to show his cpl unless he choose to. You are not require to show you cpl unless you want immediate deliver. Which means you are not required to show the FFL your cpl unless YOU choose to even if he ask or it. You are reading to much into it.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
just_a_car wrote:
And... something that Dave missed was the wording of the RCW is that the FFL-holder "may" forego the 5 day waiting period if the CPL is produced. That means you can produce the CPL and they can say "Oh, that's nice, thanks for showing me, but I'm still going to have you wait for the more current check with the police to make sure your CPL isn't forfeit."

Show me where it says this in the statute. The dealer has no authority under law to make such a discretionary call. If you have a CPL that is valid...meaning the date on the CPL clearly shows the CPL to be current and not expired...the dealer is obliged by the statute to complete the transfer.
I had interpreted the following as saying that they "may" use any of the three options but weren't required to use any of them, but it could also be interpreted to say that they "must" complete the transaction once one of the options is met: "(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:"

Well, thank you.
But the book is not exactly "black and white." It has a green and white cover.

And trust me on this, I didn't just "hand" those out. They were purchased! ;)

If it was something else, it was a rip-off, perhaps even what they call "theft of intellectual property" and I certainly want to know about that.

Stay safe out there.
I was meaning that it was my own personal B&W copy of the pamphlet... and since I'm a member of OCDO (and one that probably did the most non-original-author editting), I'm included in the copyright that is cited on the back page of the pamphlet. So, I wouldn't call it theft, but you're now aware of my non-color, cheaper, "rip-off" of a piece of paper you only have a modicum of right to claim any copyright to, since many of us here contributed to it and surfj9009 is the original author and deserves most of the credit. Just because you paid him for some color copies, don't get all high-and-mighty because I just printed out a B&W copy of my own for reference until I get a piece of the 5000 print run (which I have 100 of on order).
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:
You guys are talking about two different publications. Dave wrote a book (I have an autographed copy), and surfj9009 wrote a pamphlet which many of us contributed to in one way or another.
Well, if that's the case, then he misread my post where I clearly said "WA Gun Rights pamphlet".
 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:
You guys are talking about two different publications.  Dave wrote a book (I have an autographed copy), and surfj9009 wrote a pamphlet which many of us contributed to in one way or another.
dave and I have discussed this at length via PM. I have not seen his book, but he was concerned there may be too much similarity between the two, and that people would make copies of his book to give away. That is what the pamphlet js for, not his book! While I think that you guys are confusing the publications, I have an obligation to ask this: are the two easy to confuse, because we CANNOT copy his work. (i dont think that is the case here, but let's make sure) The pamplet and the book are vastly different aren't they? Sorry to get off topic, but since its being discussed here......please help me clarify? I dont want anybody infringing on his work. That's not right. The pamphlet is different, it was created by many of us here, for everybody.
 

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
imported post

They are two completely different publications that deal with the same topic. Dave's work is far more detailed. The pamphlet is perfect for carrying in a back pocket. The only wording that is the same is the quoted text from the RCW. Both publications are excellent, and each has its own purpose. I enjoy having Dave's book at hometo use asan in depth reference;I carry the pamphletbecause it hits the high points of the RCW and may get me out of trouble one day if I am ever confronted by LE.
 

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:
They are two completely different publications that deal with the same topic.  Dave's work is far more detailed.  The pamphlet is perfect for carrying in a back pocket.  The only wording that is the same is the quoted text from the RCW.  Both publications are excellent, and each has its own purpose.  I enjoy having Dave's book at home to use as an in depth reference; I carry the pamphlet because it hits the high points of the RCW and may get me out of trouble one day if I am ever confronted by LE.
ok. Thanks. That's what I thought. I plan on picking up a copy of his book when iget home in a few weeks. I carry the pamplet mostly to give to others
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Bear the buyer is required to show it under law by section 1(a) but not required under 1(b) or 1(c). You are trying to read it as a whole and not independant pieces that make up the code. Like I said before if the buyer wishes to forego the 5 day wait he is required by section 1(a) to provide a valid CPL. If the buyer does not wish to forego the wait then he is not required to produce a valid CPL because the buyer is opting to comply with section 1(b) or 1(c).
Hence by your own words the buyer is not required to show his cpl unless he choose to. You are not require to show you cpl unless you want immediate deliver. Which means you are not required to show the FFL your cpl unless YOU choose to even if he ask or it. You are reading to much into it.
He is required if the purchase falls under 1(a).

I look at it this way. We are both correct because of the subsections in the statute.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket:

We are both correct because of the subsections in the statute.

Not really. Look at Look at RCW 9.41.050 1(b):

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.
You really think you can be written up and charged a fine if you say to the FFL, "I'd rather not show you my CPL, let's just wait for the background check"?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

kparker wrote:
joeroket:

We are both correct because of the subsections in the statute.

Not really.  Look at Look at RCW 9.41.050 1(b):

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.
You really think you can be written up and charged a fine if you say to the FFL, "I'd rather not show you my CPL, let's just wait for the background check"? 


WAITAMINUTE
you guys are getting 9.41.090 and 9.41.050 confused.
090 is the statute about delivering a pistol after the background check and whether you wait for 5 business days or take delivery same day if you show off your CPL.

050 is the statute that covers the actual act of carrying concealed under license and showing said CPL to the cops or "any other person when and if required by law to do so." This might be a judge, court clerk, non-commissioned employee of an LE agency for purposes of renewal, blah blah blah.

There's nothing in 090 that requires anybody to show a CPL if he doesn't want to...and people can be bonehead stubborn about this if they want, but you'll have to wait to pick up your gun and this is where one must ask "What's your point?"
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
kparker wrote:
joeroket:

We are both correct because of the subsections in the statute.

Not really. Look at Look at RCW 9.41.050 1(b):
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.
You really think you can be written up and charged a fine if you say to the FFL, "I'd rather not show you my CPL, let's just wait for the background check"?


WAITAMINUTE
you guys are getting 9.41.090 and 9.41.050 confused.
090 is the statute about delivering a pistol after the background check and whether you wait for 5 business days or take delivery same day if you show off your CPL.

050 is the statute that covers the actual act of carrying concealed under license and showing said CPL to the cops or "any other person when and if required by law to do so." This might be a judge, court clerk, non-commissioned employee of an LE agency for purposes of renewal, blah blah blah.

There's nothing in 090 that requires anybody to show a CPL if he doesn't want to...and people can be bonehead stubborn about this if they want, but you'll have to wait to pick up your gun and this is where one must ask "What's your point?"
I am not getting anything confused. I am simply saying that if you want the purchase to fall under 9.41.090 1(a) then you are required by law to show your CPL.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Sorry, Dave. I was just trying to get back to the OP who quoted 9.41.050 and asked, "So, who are these 'any other persons' and what law is being refered to?"

And I do maintain that you have the choice whether or not to avail yourself of the expedited delivery of a purchased handgun via showing your CPL, and that the FFL does not have the authority to demand that you show it.

But certainly, this horse is dead, buried, and I should stop flogging it.....
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
Sorry, Dave. I was just trying to get back to the OP who quoted 9.41.050 and asked, "So, who are these 'any other persons' and what law is being refered to?"

And I do maintain that you have the choice whether or not to avail yourself of the expedited delivery of a purchased handgun via showing your CPL, and that the FFL does not have the authority to demand that you show it.

But certainly, this horse is dead, buried, and I should stop flogging it.....
You mean like his?
deadhorse.gif
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

joeroket wrote:
I am not getting anything confused. I am simply saying that if you want the purchase to fall under 9.41.090 1(a) then you are required by law to show your CPL.

Yes, that is correct...
 
Top