What does this law mean?

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;

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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! :lol:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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! :lol:

Click to expand...

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...

imported post

PM'd ya!

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..."?

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

+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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

+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.

Click to expand...

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