-
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.
-
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.
2nd Leo encounter in 2 days.
- Thread starter DEROS72
- Start date
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Randy's opinion would be great, though I bet he's not in the habit of dispensing it for free!
More to the point would be any case law on the subject, or--as I originally mentioned, any specific in any other RCW that relate to that final provision.
To respond to Bear's latest dropping, I'll go ahead and Cut and Paste right from the actual state website ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 ) showing sections (a) and (b), and highlighting the words that Bear says is in (a):
And just_a_car, your explanation makes sense as a logical matter--I just can't see how it can be justified by the text of 9.41.050 alone.
Randy's opinion would be great, though I bet he's not in the habit of dispensing it for free!
More to the point would be any case law on the subject, or--as I originally mentioned, any specific in any other RCW that relate to that final provision.
To respond to Bear's latest dropping, I'll go ahead and Cut and Paste right from the actual state website ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 ) showing sections (a) and (b), and highlighting the words that Bear says is in (a):
To those who didn't understand what I meant by different readings, I think the crux of the matter in (b) is whether the antecedent of "to do so" is "shall have in h/h immediate possession" or "shall display". If it's the latter (which I think is the stronger reading, absent any clarifying text elsewhere in the RCW and/or any case law) then there would have to be an explicit provision of the law stating specific circumstances where there was a "shall display to any other person" requirement.
And just_a_car, your explanation makes sense as a logical matter--I just can't see how it can be justified by the text of 9.41.050 alone.
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
imported post
kparker wrote:
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 -- This portion represents a complete thought and required action and could stand alone if you ended the sentence right here. Notice that there is a condition that directly addresses the "have h/h CPL" here. More on that below.
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. -- If this portion carried over the subject from the previous, which was not necessary because it's all one sentence; replace the opening "and" with "Every licensee" as used in the first part, then this could stand alone as a different complete thought and an action. The "when and if" appears to be a condition for only the "shall display."
Note the similarity of the two conditions. "When h/s is required by this section to have a CPL" and "if required by law to do so." Similar, but not quite the same. The first condition is fairly explicit. It specifically references what it is talking about (the having) and what affects it (this section).
The "required by law" is much broader. It could include the rest of Title 9 (like 9.91), though I haven't found anything granting authority to any other person. Why would they include this for "having," when that has already been explicitly addressed?
Okay, that's my IANAL and I'm tired .02.
kparker wrote:
kp, outstanding analysis, as well as JAC's initial explanation. Forgive me, it's getting late and I'm (again) about to violate my don't post when tired rule - but - I'm going to go with the "shall display" option. Here's why.
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 -- This portion represents a complete thought and required action and could stand alone if you ended the sentence right here. Notice that there is a condition that directly addresses the "have h/h CPL" here. More on that below.
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. -- If this portion carried over the subject from the previous, which was not necessary because it's all one sentence; replace the opening "and" with "Every licensee" as used in the first part, then this could stand alone as a different complete thought and an action. The "when and if" appears to be a condition for only the "shall display."
Note the similarity of the two conditions. "When h/s is required by this section to have a CPL" and "if required by law to do so." Similar, but not quite the same. The first condition is fairly explicit. It specifically references what it is talking about (the having) and what affects it (this section).
The "required by law" is much broader. It could include the rest of Title 9 (like 9.91), though I haven't found anything granting authority to any other person. Why would they include this for "having," when that has already been explicitly addressed?
Okay, that's my IANAL and I'm tired .02.
imported post
The law, as stated, is very unclear as to what provisions require you to "display" your license to either a police officer or to another person. Though it seems clear to me that you do not need to show it to either unless required by law.
I do not read it as you "shall display" your license when requested by a police officer, but instead, you "shall display" it to a police officer IF it is required by law.
I don't see a concrete reading of it where the condition doesn't apply to both a police officer and any other person.
The law, as stated, is very unclear as to what provisions require you to "display" your license to either a police officer or to another person. Though it seems clear to me that you do not need to show it to either unless required by law.
I do not read it as you "shall display" your license when requested by a police officer, but instead, you "shall display" it to a police officer IF it is required by law.
I don't see a concrete reading of it where the condition doesn't apply to both a police officer and any other person.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
owensd,
owensd,
That's easy (if not obvious); it's either:
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
vs
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 )
Neither of them make for a totally happy reading. The former gives everyone the same authority as the police officer to demand to see your CPL when you're required to have it (and does not set up an intermediate class of authorized demanders such as bus drivers); the latter is perhaps a reference to other sections of the RCW spelling out additional requirements for displaying the CPL (which as far as I can tell do not exist), or else self-referential nonsense (nonsense in that if it is self-referential then the distinction between police and others collapses.)
deanf
Regular Member
imported post
You do know that criminal prosecutions in this country are financed by the state, right?
You do know that criminal prosecutions in this country are financed by the state, right?
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
kparker wrote:
kparker wrote:
Why do you guys insist on ignoring the relevant part of the statement "or to any other personwhen and if required by law to do so" Where does the law say you have to show your CPL to anyone else?As far as I know it does notspecificly give civilians the right to ask you for your CPL anymore than they have a right to ask to see your DL.
imported post
Bear, that's the point right... if the "when required by law" is directed at both the police officer AND anyone else or if it is solely directed at anyone else. That part of the statement isn't clear as who it is directed toward.
If it's only directed toward "anyone", then I don't see a law that says you go. If it's directed toward both, then you only need to show it to a police officer when required by law, which I'm not seeing here either.
So where are the laws that state that we need to show it to anyone (including a police officer)?
Bear, that's the point right... if the "when required by law" is directed at both the police officer AND anyone else or if it is solely directed at anyone else. That part of the statement isn't clear as who it is directed toward.
If it's only directed toward "anyone", then I don't see a law that says you go. If it's directed toward both, then you only need to show it to a police officer when required by law, which I'm not seeing here either.
So where are the laws that state that we need to show it to anyone (including a police officer)?
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
owensd wrote:
owensd wrote:
If it said "and" between "police officer" and "to any other person" then it wouldapply toboth. Since it says "or" the "required by law"only applies to the any other person.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Bear,
Still waiting for some acknowledgement from you that I was right, and you were wrong, about where the "required to display" part occurs.
Bear,
Still waiting for some acknowledgement from you that I was right, and you were wrong, about where the "required to display" part occurs.
gsx1138
Regular Member
imported post
kparker wrote:
I don't think it's quite cold enough down there for that.
kparker wrote:
I don't think it's quite cold enough down there for that.
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
kparker wrote:
You will never get it because you are wrong, totally and completely. Because you turkeys are still ignoring the the part that counts the most. The modifier of "any other person" "when and if required by law to do so." Where does that wording require you to display your CPLso for anyone else? It doesn't and it can't.There needs to besomething written somewhere else that says you need to show on demand by other than cops. Two groups here, "cops" and "any other person" andnone of you have show the "when and if required by law to do so."FYI I read clear thru he whole section and never once does it specify you must display your CP to anyone other than a cop.
Show me where it says display to any other person and the when and if? You can't because it doesn't say you have to display to anyone other than cops if asked.
kparker wrote:
You will never get it because you are wrong, totally and completely. Because you turkeys are still ignoring the the part that counts the most. The modifier of "any other person" "when and if required by law to do so." Where does that wording require you to display your CPLso for anyone else? It doesn't and it can't.There needs to besomething written somewhere else that says you need to show on demand by other than cops. Two groups here, "cops" and "any other person" andnone of you have show the "when and if required by law to do so."FYI I read clear thru he whole section and never once does it specify you must display your CP to anyone other than a cop.
Show me where it says display to any other person and the when and if? You can't because it doesn't say you have to display to anyone other than cops if asked.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Ah, well, enough bear-baiting entertainment for one day!
Too bad some of the more experienced folks like Dave W or Marty H or 911boss aren't likely to weigh in on this mess...
Ah, well, enough bear-baiting entertainment for one day!
Too bad some of the more experienced folks like Dave W or Marty H or 911boss aren't likely to weigh in on this mess...
amlevin
Regular Member
imported post
This may make for some interesting reading:
http://dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/citizenarrest1.pdf
If unlawful carry of a firearm is a misdemeanor it to can be justification for a Citizen's Arrest. If one is challenged for carrying, it might be the circumstance that is described in the RCWas that "any other person".
The above document is directed at security guards but outlines the legality of Citizen's Arrests in WA State (with cites).
I could see a Seattle "Granola Eater", who is riding the bus and notices someone wearing a gun, challenging the carrier. If told to "pound sand" or pretend his comments are like a suppository and to put them where it goes, that "granola eater" is most assuredly going to pull out his cell phone and call 911 (wonder how big a carbon footprint that cell phone left on the planet with it's manufacture etc?). NOW the cops come and you HAVE to show your permit.
This may make for some interesting reading:
http://dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/citizenarrest1.pdf
If unlawful carry of a firearm is a misdemeanor it to can be justification for a Citizen's Arrest. If one is challenged for carrying, it might be the circumstance that is described in the RCWas that "any other person".
The above document is directed at security guards but outlines the legality of Citizen's Arrests in WA State (with cites).
I could see a Seattle "Granola Eater", who is riding the bus and notices someone wearing a gun, challenging the carrier. If told to "pound sand" or pretend his comments are like a suppository and to put them where it goes, that "granola eater" is most assuredly going to pull out his cell phone and call 911 (wonder how big a carbon footprint that cell phone left on the planet with it's manufacture etc?). NOW the cops come and you HAVE to show your permit.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks, amlevin! That's exactly the kind of further input I was hoping for.
Although I must admit that this:
Thanks, amlevin! That's exactly the kind of further input I was hoping for.
Although I must admit that this:
doesn't leave me feeling a whole lot more informed; is there a list of all the "breach of the peace" misdomeanors somewhere?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
amlevin wrote:
amlevin wrote:
"If you want to waste police time and resources checking on something legal, be my guest."
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
DEROS72 wrote:
DEROS72 wrote:
Or the granola boy gets ticketed for a false 911 call.
just_a_car
Regular Member
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Edit: Oh, and if they did embelish to make it sound like you were doing something illegal when you weren't, then they most certianly should be ticketed.
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Only if they knew it was legal; but I agree... there should be more tickets for people that waste the time and resources of the hard-working police when they know it's legal and they have an unreasonable phobia of armed citizens.
Edit: Oh, and if they did embelish to make it sound like you were doing something illegal when you weren't, then they most certianly should be ticketed.