CPL VEHICLE LAWS

imported post

monsterbass wrote:

Thats what worries me. Seems like the only safe way to transport is to keep weapon on your own person.

Click to expand...

If you have a CPL then there is no worry. You are allowed to have a loaded pistol in the car, period.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

I had a couple friends go through an incident about 7 years ago that fits pretty damned good with this thread.

One had a cpl and one did not. CPL holder was in the back seat and the pistol was in the glove box. Non-cpl holder was driving. He was stopped for a traffic infraction. CPL holder notified that he had a pistol in the glove box, because that is where the registration was at. They impounded the pistol and arrested the non-cpl holder for violating .050, because he was driving and in control of the loaded pistol. In the end the firearm was returned to CPL holder and charges dropped because there was a CPL holder inside the vehicle.

Click to expand...

Hehe... This goes right back to our discussion in that other thread joeroket..... Your friends should have NOT TALKED TO THE POLICE. He would have saved himself a great deal of trouble by just not telling the police there was a gun in the glove box when it was totally legal for it to be there in the first place.

imported post

arentol wrote:

joeroket wrote:

I had a couple friends go through an incident about 7 years ago that fits pretty damned good with this thread.

One had a cpl and one did not. CPL holder was in the back seat and the pistol was in the glove box. Non-cpl holder was driving. He was stopped for a traffic infraction. CPL holder notified that he had a pistol in the glove box, because that is where the registration was at. They impounded the pistol and arrested the non-cpl holder for violating .050, because he was driving and in control of the loaded pistol. In the end the firearm was returned to CPL holder and charges dropped because there was a CPL holder inside the vehicle.

Click to expand...

Hehe... This goes right back to our discussion in that other thread joeroket..... Your friends should have NOT TALKED TO THE POLICE. He would have saved himself a great deal of trouble by just not telling the police there was a gun in the glove box when it was totally legal for it to be there in the first place.

Click to expand...

It was legal for it to be there but it is not smart to open your glove box to retrieve registration when there is a loaded pistol in it without notifying them.

imported post

deanf wrote:

In summary, it would be read to allow a loaded firearm to be anywhere within the vehicle as long as it is not carried or immediately controlled by a non-licensee.

Clear?

Click to expand...

No, because elsewhere in the RCWs, carrying concealed without a permit is prohibited. There would be no reason to prohibit it again.

Click to expand...

Who said the pistol was concealed? I said that the non-licensee would not otherwise be allowed to carry or be in immediate control of the pistol while in the vehicle, while at the same time, if the non-licensee then stepped out the the vehicle and strapped it on OC style (loaded or not), they are perfectly legal. That's why its re-stated and re-defined for this special circumstance in the RCW.

There is no law stating that a loaded firearm within a vehicle is by default considered also concealed, only that the license in this special circumstance is required to conceal it and also to have it loaded, where outside the car, there is no restriction for having it loaded.

Get it now?

imported post

joeroket wrote:

monsterbass wrote:

Thats what worries me. Seems like the only safe way to transport is to keep weapon on your own person.

Click to expand...

If you have a CPL then there is no worry. You are allowed to have a loaded pistol in the car, period.

Click to expand...

Exactly, except that the license doesn't extend to your passengers possession. I don't think any court would try and push a conviction for a licensee having a gun in the glove box even if the non-licensee was driving the car.

Its not uncommon at all however for a LEO to arrest first and ask questions later.

Now, given the scenario of a minivan with the licensee in the drivers seat and a non-licensed passenger sitting in the back row with with the loaded pistol stashed under their seat, or even sitting on the back seat next to the passenger... :?

imported post

It saddens me that governments think they can ignore the Constitution and 'infringe' on our rights to keep and bear arms. How do they rationalize? Or do they just read it as the right to keep and bear pistols? I mean,aren'tAR-15s, AK47s and Hunting riflesconsidered arms?

Well I guess it's one step at a time. First we get to carry in National Parks again... then, we can carry our weapons... any weapons, in our cars.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

joeroket wrote:

monsterbass wrote:

Thats what worries me. Seems like the only safe way to transport is to keep weapon on your own person.

Click to expand...

If you have a CPL then there is no worry. You are allowed to have a loaded pistol in the car, period.

Click to expand...

Now, given the scenario of a minivan with the licensee in the drivers seat and a non-licensed passenger sitting in the back row with with the loaded pistol stashed under their seat, or even sitting on the back seat next to the passenger... :?

Click to expand...

The law is very clear. It states "A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there...."

I don't think it can be any more clear than that. I think this law throws out any constructive possession argument.

imported post

The law is very clear. It states "A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there...."

Click to expand...

You leave out a key part. The law must be quoted with all parts or a proper analysis cannot be made. To wit:

(i) The pistol is on the licensee's person,

Click to expand...

What does Workman's book say? Surely it is addressed.

imported post

deanf wrote:

The law is very clear. It states "A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there...."

Click to expand...

You leave out a key part. The law must be quoted with all parts or a proper analysis cannot be made. To wit:

(i) The pistol is on the licensee's person,

Click to expand...

What does Workman's book say? Surely it is addressed.

Click to expand...

No it does not need to be quoted with all parts. All you have to do is satisfy one of the three requirements.

imported post

My grammar education as I remember it is that there is an "and" implied between clauses (i) and (ii).

The "and" before the colon carries through until affirmatively change by the "or".

imported post

deanf wrote:

My grammar education as I remember it is that there is an "and" implied between clauses (i) and (ii).

The "and" before the colon carries through until affirmatively change by the "or".

Click to expand...

If there was no colon I would agree that the "and" would be implicit between the first two clauses. The colon is the separator between a complete statement and, in this case, a list that directly relates to it. The commas are used to separate the independent clauses.

Of course I am no grammar major but this is my recollection of it.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one Dean.

imported post

In RCW 9.41.050 subsection (2)(a) there is a simple declarative sentence (before "and:", followed by a subjunctive clause. The declarative sentence states that you must have a CPL and that one of the list following must also be true. Within that list there are three conditions, the first two followed by commas, the penultimate followed by a comma and an "or". The comma is thus understood to be followed by "or" in all cases in the clause or list.

In a logical interpretation the clause could not possibly be conjunctive because i and iii could not possibly be simultaneously true; you could not lock your pistol in the car and keep it on your person. And no, they're not talking about two pistols. What they're talking about in ii is freedom on your part to put the pistol in any convenient place; glove box, console, whatever, as long as you're there. If ii means "somewhere off your body", then i and ii couldn't both be true.

Plain language interpretation follows 'cause the OP wanted it. You need a CPL to put a loaded pistol into a car. You also need to do one of 3 things; keep it on your body or put it somewhere in the car but you gotta stay there or you gotta tell your hoodlum friends to get out and you lock the pistol up out of sight.

Was this too long? You should have paid attention to just_a_car.

MD

imported post

joeroket wrote:

It was legal for it to be there but it is not smart to open your glove box to retrieve registration when there is a loaded pistol in it without notifying them.

Click to expand...

Get the registration out before the cop gets to your car then. The cop may not be happy seeing you reach for your glove compartment before he gets there, but he can't do anything about it.

imported post

I keep my registration and insurance in a compartment in the ceiling of my vehicle. That way I never have to open the glove box or console if stopped.

imported post

j2l3 wrote:

I keep my registration and insurance in a compartment in the ceiling of my vehicle. That way I never have to open the glove box or console if stopped.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's where I keep mine as well. Actually, I keep mine in a pocket on the visor.

imported post

arentol wrote:

joeroket wrote:

It was legal for it to be there but it is not smart to open your glove box to retrieve registration when there is a loaded pistol in it without notifying them.

Click to expand...

Get the registration out before the cop gets to your car then. The cop may not be happy seeing you reach for your glove compartment before he gets there, but he can't do anything about it.

Click to expand...

I just don't violate motor vehicle laws.

imported post

NavyLT said, "Leave his loaded pistol in the vehicle when he leaves, so long as at least the vehicle is locked and the loaded pistol is concealed, whether or not a non-CPL holder remains in the vehicle so long as the non-CPL holder does not carry the loaded pistol in the vehicle. For instance, I am carrying my loaded pistol in my vehicle, Joe, a non-CPL holder is riding with me. I go to the post office. I remove my loaded pistol from my holster, place it under my seat, leave Joe in the vehicle, and lock the vehicle when I leave to enter the Post Office. No part of the statute has been violated. Technically, it could even be Joe's car."

I believe that you're mistaken but I only have the strength of an inference to go on. I think there was an implication in (ii) that you can't do what you're talking about. The problem with arguing implications is that it's like two clouds fighting it out with water pistols. I suppose that if push came to shove that a (hopefully overworked) prosecutor would drop the whole thing, realizing that the case was the work of an over zealous regulatory Myrmidon.

MD

imported post

Machoduck wrote:

NavyLT said, "Leave his loaded pistol in the vehicle when he leaves, so long as at least the vehicle is locked and the loaded pistol is concealed, whether or not a non-CPL holder remains in the vehicle so long as the non-CPL holder does not carry the loaded pistol in the vehicle. For instance, I am carrying my loaded pistol in my vehicle, Joe, a non-CPL holder is riding with me. I go to the post office. I remove my loaded pistol from my holster, place it under my seat, leave Joe in the vehicle, and lock the vehicle when I leave to enter the Post Office. No part of the statute has been violated. Technically, it could even be Joe's car."

I believe that you're mistaken but I only have the strength of an inference to go on. I think there was an implication in (ii) that you can't do what you're talking about. The problem with arguing implications is that it's like two clouds fighting it out with water pistols. I suppose that if push came to shove that a (hopefully overworked) prosecutor would drop the whole thing, realizing that the case was the work of an over zealous regulatory Myrmidon.

MD

Click to expand...

I agree with Machoduck. Joe, your non-cpl holding friend, would have constructive possession the moment you leave the vehicle. Now if you locked it in the glove box and Joe had no access to the pistol he would not have constructive possession and you would, more than likely, be within the statue.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

The statute does not allow for "constructive possession", the statute only forbids placing a loaded gun in a vehicle or carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle by a non-CPL holder. It does not specifically prohibit the possession of a loaded gun in a vehicle by a non-CPL holder as in the loaded gun and the non-CPL holder are merely in the same vehicle together.

Click to expand...

Actually, the RCW 9.41.050 is quite silent on the whole matter of "constructive possession". I personally think it would come down to who, the licensee or non-license holder, had greater level of control or access to the firearm in that...

In most cases I believe only immediate possession or control by a non-licensee would be prosecuted or for that matter, even result in an arrest here in Washington.

I see no evidence to believe the legislative intent was to give everyone inside the vehicle a blanket immunity though ONE license holder, but at the same time, it also was not meant to punish anyone else who might have non-constructive access to a loaded firearm that was placed there by a licensee who is either nearby (leaping range) or within the vehicle.

Its one of those gray areas that the RCW doesn't define very well, and that has no significant history in a court of law to give a precedent. That I am aware of.

In all such cases, erroring on the side of caution is best. IMHO

imported post

The RCW does not allow for constructive possession if the CPL holder is in the vehicle. Once the CPL holder leaves the vehicle constructive possession comes back into play.