Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Changing and RCW

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    I was wondering what the process is for getting legislation enacted.

    I have been writing up, based on what I have read from other proposed bills, something that would make CPLs basically "concealed weapons licenses," in that you are also allowed to have a knife concealed with your pistol. It's not done yet, so I can't publish it here, but that's the gist of it.

    I'm trying to figure out how I go from turning it from a MSword document into law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Make an appointment with one of the legislators in your area. Bring a copy of your proposal along with justification as to why it should become law. You will want some statistics (if you can find them) showing why this isn't a bad idea as many will automatically assume that more people carrying knives is going to be a problem. Your legislator, if he or she agrees to carry the bill will then take it from there. They have an office at the legislature that writes bills and puts them into official form so that they pass legal muster, etc.

    You may wish to do some research on the old Washington permit which was a Concealed Weapons Permit and why it was changed to a CPP. They may have had reasons they thought were good and they may be resistant to changing it back. Maybe some of the old timers who were around then can chip in with some thoughts.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    What kind of knife are you wishing to carry and what law do you think makes it illegal to do so?

    I am not aware of any state law, of course I am sure there are many city ordinances though. Not sure how much luck there is to be had on doing a state preemption for knives.

    The relevant RCW seem to be 9.41.250 which specifies certain types of knives that are illegal (essentially "auto" knives such as switch blades- no chance of changing that). The actual law related to knife carry is 9.41.270 (same one as for firearms), and it requires the carry to be "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." No mention at all about concealment.

    There is a specific law restricting carry a pistol concealed, but there isn't a state law about knives.

    While a knife would be better than nothing, it certainly isn't going to be one of my preferred choices for a defensive weapon, probably not even in the top ten (unless it was a throwing knife maybe).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    RCW 9.41.250(2) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon



    I'm thinking as something for very close quarter. I know from martial arts that if you pull a gun on someone at point blank, the unarmed person has an advantage. (There was a news story about this about a year ago in Yakima, but I can't seem to find it.- Guy A approaches B, start arguing, Guy A pulls gun, Guy B takes it and shoots him once, police charge him with attempted murder because he supposedly could have left at that point)
    If there is no round in the chamber, pulling out a gun and chambering it without him grabbing hold of it is difficult. Ever try to grab a knife blade?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Edit- double post.

    [code]

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    I'm not a lawyer, but I interpreted that statute based on this bit:

    "Furtively carries with intent..."
    That means you're going to, or have already committed a crime when carrying your dangerous weapon.

    They would have to prove that you had intent.


    But again, I'm not a lawyer.



    P.S. If you're going to talk to a legislator, please tell them about the need to legalize suppressors and:

    - Show them the effects of hearing damage

    - Show them the chart with calibers and decibel level

    - Show them a video (laptop maybe?) of them actually being used and that they aren't like in the movies.

    - Their legal use in the U.K. and Switzerland as "moderators"


    The law wouldn't have to be removed, but simply changed from:

    "...who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
    to something like:

    ...who shall use any illegal contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor
    or even something like:

    ...who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor unless that device has been legally registered according to federal law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    I think as far as silencers go something should be worded about criminal intent, or possible location and circumstances, though those are tricky. Nothing wrong with someone with sensitive hearing shooting it in the woods or at the range, but the idea of self-defense with a silencer is rather dificult to claim.
    And given the current political climate, it may backfire when the anti-gun crowd realizes they are not illegal to possess.
    State of Washington v. Dalona S. Myles made it so that they just need to prove you were carrying it and it was not visible. Logic being that if you put it where it is not visible, you intended to conceal it.
    Case was a 16 yo girl with a pearing knife in her inside jacket pocket.

  8. #8
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Better yet, why not just:

    "...who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm directly in concert with the commission of a crime, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    State of Washington v. Dalona S. Myles made it so that they just need to prove you were carrying it and it was not visible. Logic being that if you put it where it is not visible, you intended to conceal it.
    Case was a 16 yo girl with a pearing knife in her inside jacket pocket.
    I googled State of Washington v. Dalona S. Myles and I just skimmed the case a bit.

    It seems I misread the statute, or at least the way it will be interpreted with that case as precedent.

    It's not about whether or not you intend to actually do something, but simply trying to hide the weapon is illegal.

    So what I said above is incorrect.


    Better yet, why not just: "...who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm directly in concert with the commission of a crime, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
    What's funny about that stupid law is I think it could cover ear protection too. I mean, does wearing muffs and plugs make us criminals?

    What about insulated walls? What if a stereo is playing in the background when you're shooting? Those are contrivances, aren't they?

    You should tell the legislator to change the wording just so that people who wear hearing protection can't be charged by some politically motivated prosecutor. :shock:



    Edit: I added smilies so people know I'm joking.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Better yet, why not just: "...who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm directly in concert with the commission of a crime, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
    I think felony for criminal use, nothing for normal use.

    Consider that using or displaying a machine gun during the commission of any other felony is CLASS A!


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    jim_dandy wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    State of Washington v. Dalona S. Myles made it so that they just need to prove you were carrying it and it was not visible. Logic being that if you put it where it is not visible, you intended to conceal it.
    Case was a 16 yo girl with a pearing knife in her inside jacket pocket.
    I googled State of Washington v. Dalona S. Myles and I just skimmed the case a bit.

    It seems I misread the statute, or at least the way it will be interpreted with that case as precedent.

    It's not about whether or not you intend to actually do something, but simply trying to hide the weapon is illegal.

    So what I said above is incorrect.


    Better yet, why not just: "...who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm directly in concert with the commission of a crime, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
    What's funny about that stupid law is I think it covers ear protection too. I mean, does wearing muffs and plugs make us criminals?

    What about insulated walls? What if a stereo is playing in the background when you're shooting? Those are contrivances, aren't they?

    You should tell the legislator to change the wording just so that people who wear hearing protection can't be charged by some politically motivated prosecutor.
    Hearing protection does not "suppress the noise of any firearm."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    I am not Descartes :P, I was overemphasizing semantics to make a point.

    Technically hearing protection suppresses the noise, albeit for the individual and not for the surrounding environment.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    Nothing wrong with someone with sensitive hearing shooting it in the woods or at the range, but the idea of self-defense with a silencer is rather dificult to claim.
    Ever fired a pistol inside without hearing protection? It is a lot louder than out in the woods where the noise attenuates into the surroundings.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    jim_dandy wrote:
    I am not Descartes :P, I was overemphasizing semantics to make a point.

    Technically hearing protection suppresses the noise, albeit for the individual and not for the surrounding environment.

    The key word is "of."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    In a court, you wouldn't be condvicted if you have earplugs, even though the law doesn't specify.
    Regardless, I would like to see silencers legal for regular use, felony for criminal, though I imagine any crime that involves a silencer would probably be facing life anyway.

Posting Permissions

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