Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: What does this law mean?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    RCW 9.41.060 states:

    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;
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060

    Could someone please provide me with an explanation of what this means? It seems to me it's saying that if you are hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc. outdoors, then you aren't bound by the restriction to have a license to carry a concealed firearm or to have a loaded weapon in a vehicle.

    Since this exception applies even when traveling to or from a recreation area, what's to stop someone from claiming that they were just on their way to or from a hiking trip? Of course it all depends on if it's "reasonable to conclude" that they're telling the truth, but this seems like a big loophole around the need to have a CHL. Which makes me think my interpretation probably isn't correct.

    I haven't heard this exception mentioned anywhere else when discussing the various laws & exceptions around carrying a gun, so I'm curious to see what you all have to say about it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    We have discussed this a few times. To answer your question about what would keep a person from simply using it as an excuse to carry without a permit would be answered by this part of the code;

    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

    It is what a reasonable person would believe. If a guy is walking down the street and the officer has RAS or PC to stop him and he has a pistol then it would be reasonable to conclude that he does not fall under this exemption. A person walking or driving with a backpack, again assuming there is RAS or PC for the stop, is found to have a pistol and only personal belongings in the backpack would probably not fall under the exemption. If the same person as above had survival gear and packed food in his backpack then it may be reasonable to conclude that he is in fact on his way to go hiking.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the reply. That makes sense about not being able to use it as an excuse, I figured it wouldn't be that easy. But what about someone that is actually outdoors camping or hiking, etc? They're allowed to carry concealed w/o a license? If so, do any of you do that when outdoors? Ever had any problems?

    Thanks for the help. I'm new to all this stuff and just trying to understand all of the legalities associated with carrying a gun.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    RichardDavies wrote:
    Thanks for the reply. That makes sense about not being able to use it as an excuse, I figured it wouldn't be that easy. But what about someone that is actually outdoors camping or hiking, etc? They're allowed to carry concealed w/o a license? If so, do any of you do that when outdoors? Ever had any problems?

    Thanks for the help. I'm new to all this stuff and just trying to understand all of the legalities associated with carrying a gun.

    Before I had my CPL I carried a concealed pistol a handful of times under this exemption. I never had any problems ... though I was never found out.

    Simplest advice I can give: Know the law. Keep a copy of that code with you to prove to interested parties that you do, indeed, have an exemption from the prohibition on concealed weapons.




    ETA: Just for the sake of clarification, I recently moved from WA to ID. I keep forgetting that my profile shows me as being in ID while I'm talking about my experiences as a citizen of WA!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    RichardDavies wrote:
    Thanks for the reply. That makes sense about not being able to use it as an excuse, I figured it wouldn't be that easy. But what about someone that is actually outdoors camping or hiking, etc? They're allowed to carry concealed w/o a license? If so, do any of you do that when outdoors? Ever had any problems?

    Thanks for the help. I'm new to all this stuff and just trying to understand all of the legalities associated with carrying a gun.
    For someone that is camping, hiking, etc. they absolutely are allowed to carry a pistol concealed. I personally would not recommend trying to do it on your way to and from the recreation but the law does allow it. I have never done it just because I have never had the need to. The only problems I can see is in a nat'l forest where you may come in contact with a ranger. They are probably not aware of this law, come to think of it alot of local LEO may not be aware of it either. As Rattlesnake said it is a pretty good idea to keep a copy of the law with you so you can show it to an uneducated LEO if needed.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    American Rattlesnake wrote
    ETA: Just for the sake of clarification, I recently moved from WA to ID. I keep forgetting that my profile shows me as being in ID while I'm talking about my experiences as a citizen of WA!
    I figured something like that was probably the case. What part of Idaho did you move to? I grew up in Idaho and moved to Washington about five years ago. While Washington is indeed very beautiful, it's a little frustrating putting up with all the liberals in the area...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    PM'd ya!

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kitsap & Whatcom Counties, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    What if you were jogging around your neighborhood or in a city while carrying concealed? As in not the "wilderness" type outdoors. Also, would jogging even fall under the "such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding..."?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Although this exclusion is somewhat ambiguous, judging from the example activities listed in the law, it's probably safe to assume it's meant to only apply to "wilderness" type activities, not the outdoor activities one might do around their neighborhood such as jogging or riding a bike.

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kitsap & Whatcom Counties, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    That was my opinion as well. Otherwise, there were hardly be a need for CPL's if everyone just chose to stroll around.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    RichardDavies wrote:
    Although this exclusion is somewhat ambiguous, judging from the example activities listed in the law, it's probably safe to assume it's meant to only apply to "wilderness" type activities, not the outdoor activities one might do around their neighborhood such as jogging or riding a bike.
    I'd say that it's a good defense if charged, but a poor way to keep from getting arrested. Because the law doesn't clearly define "outdoor activity", someone would probably be arrested for concealed carry while biking or jogging (given some reason for the officer to do so). However, a good lawyer could defend that a reasonable person would conclude that jogging or biking it a lawful outdoor activity, and thus is exempted under the law.

    Basically, don't lean on it, but know it's there as a backup.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I would say spend the $60 for a CPL. While the law says "outdoor recreational activities" it is vauge, but seems to suggest that it is primarily for hunting or fishing.

    That said hiking (some cities have urban trails) bicycling or jogging are also outdoor recreational activities. The intent seems to be to allow a person to carry concealed for whatever reason while they are in the outdoors for personal protection. Notice the law is concerned with concealed carry, not open carry.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    I would say spend the $60 for a CPL. While the law says "outdoor recreational activities" it is vauge, but seems to suggest that it is primarily for hunting or fishing.

    That said hiking (some cities have urban trails) bicycling or jogging are also outdoor recreational activities. The intent seems to be to allow a person to carry concealed for whatever reason while they are in the outdoors for personal protection. Notice the law is concerned with concealed carry, not open carry.
    +1. Even if you are right in your interpretation, the time lost from work to to go to court, lawyer and legal fees etc. will far out weigh the 55 or 60 bucks to get the permit.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    I never conceal while hiking/hunting in the mountains doing whatever I like my gun handy more so up there than in town.

  15. #15
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Sean wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    I would say spend the $60 for a CPL. While the law says "outdoor recreational activities" it is vauge, but seems to suggest that it is primarily for hunting or fishing.

    That said hiking (some cities have urban trails) bicycling or jogging are also outdoor recreational activities. The intent seems to be to allow a person to carry concealed for whatever reason while they are in the outdoors for personal protection. Notice the law is concerned with concealed carry, not open carry.
    +1. Even if you are right in your interpretation, the time lost from work to to go to court, lawyer and legal fees etc. will far out weigh the 55 or 60 bucks to get the permit.

    +1 for both of you. When I'm out in the woods I open carry, because I'm normally there hunting anyways.

Posting Permissions

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