OC on a bus, RAS? sterile carry!

imported post

so your riding along and a cop comes on and sees you there... with a holstered hand gun... can he have ras to either "need" to see a cpl, so bullets dont matter?, or look to "proof" that the gun isnt loaded, so cpl isnt required? ive studied lots and im thinkin he cant do either.... thoughts????

imported post

I'm pretty sure that he can ask for a CPL without RAS but I couldn't give you a legal reason why.

imported post

You are required to show a CPL upon demand to an LEO when you are required to have one by law. If he requests a CPL and you tell him you do not have one then I would imagine he would have RAS to check for a loaded weapon since a CPL is required for is in a vehicle.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

I'm pretty sure that he can ask for a CPL without RAS but I couldn't give you a legal reason why.

Click to expand...

It goes one of two ways, and joeroket pretty much hit it head on. He can ask for a CPL, when you say "I don't have one with me, but my gun is unloaded" he then has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime may be being committed and should be investigated. Specifically, it's reasonable to assume you're lying or carrying +1, and that can be articulated as "I'd like to verify it's unloaded, because it's a crime if not."

imported post

you folks sure miss the point!!! sterile carry!! no ID no CPL, dont need either, how could he have RAS to belive its loaded if i told him it wasnt! you make as much sense as saying he could stop a shoppper leaving a store with a bag of groceries cause he has RAS to check that you hadnt stolen them.

imported post

You are required to show a CPL upon demand to an LEO when you are required to have one by law.

Click to expand...

This means RAS that you are carrying concealed. OC= no need for CPL.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

You are required to show a CPL upon demand to an LEO when you are required to have one by law.

Click to expand...

This means RAS that you are carrying concealed. OC= no need for CPL.

Click to expand...

Nope. You are required to have one for a loaded pistol in a vehicle also.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

you folks sure miss the point!!! sterile carry!! no ID no CPL, dont need either, how could he have RAS to belive its loaded if i told him it wasnt! you make as much sense as saying he could stop a shoppper leaving a store with a bag of groceries cause he has RAS to check that you hadnt stolen them.

Click to expand...

We get the point. We just interpret the law a little differently. Regardless, I offer this advice:

If you ever decide to test this issue then I STRONGLY suggest that you don't give the officer too much of a hassle over it. When he asks if you have a CPL, say no. When he asks if the weapon is loaded, say no. When he asks to see the firearm, say "I do not consent to you taking my firearm, but I will not stop you from doing so either" (Make sure this is all being recorded). Then let him take the firearm from you and verify it is not loaded.

Once the incident is over file a complaint and/or go to your lawyer and see if he will take the case for a suit against the officer and transit authority or city. Don't get yourself arrested over this issue. Try to clarify the law via a civil case, not a criminal one. You will be much better off in the long run.

imported post

arentol wrote:

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

you folks sure miss the point!!! sterile carry!! no ID no CPL, dont need either, how could he have RAS to belive its loaded if i told him it wasnt! you make as much sense as saying he could stop a shoppper leaving a store with a bag of groceries cause he has RAS to check that you hadnt stolen them.

Click to expand...

We get the point. We just interpret the law a little differently. Regardless, I offer this advice:

If you ever decide to test this issue then I STRONGLY suggest that you don't give the officer too much of a hassle over it. When he asks if you have a CPL, say no. When he asks if the weapon is loaded, say no. When he asks to see the firearm, say "I do not consent to you taking my firearm, but I will not stop you from doing so either" (Make sure this is all being recorded). Then let him take the firearm from you and verify it is not loaded.

Once the incident is over file a complaint and/or go to your lawyer and see if he will take the case for a suit against the officer and transit authority or city. Don't get yourself arrested over this issue. Try to clarify the law via a civil case, not a criminal one. You will be much better off in the long run.

Click to expand...

Excellent advice.

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

you folks sure miss the point!!! sterile carry!! no ID no CPL, dont need either, how could he have RAS to belive its loaded if i told him it wasnt! you make as much sense as saying he could stop a shoppper leaving a store with a bag of groceries cause he has RAS to check that you hadnt stolen them.

Click to expand...

If a grocery store had recently reported that somebody walked out of the grocery store with a bag of groceries they had not paid for, the officer would have every legal right to stop you to check that you were not that person. You can yell and scream that it's abuse of your rights, but based entirely on the facts known to the officer at the time, they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is or MIGHT BE being committed. This gives enough grounds for a Terry stop.

In a similar fashion, the law specifically states that carrying a loaded pistol in a vehicle requires having a CPL. If you are carrying in a manner that does not clearly show that your pistol is unloaded, an officer investigating could reasonably assume that the law is being broken. Just because a magazine is not in the pistol, does not mean that the pistol is unloaded, and we are told and taught to always assume a pistol is loaded unless shown otherwise. Based on this rule #1 of firearms, combined with the law regarding loaded pistols in a vehicle, an officer has very articulable and quite reasonable suspicion that a crime MIGHT BE being committed. Note the wording of Terry: "Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?"

If you are following proper firearms safety and assuming a gun is loaded until verified it is not, and you know the law requires that a gun be unloaded if the person does not have a CPL, then the facts available to the officer at the moment of search would warrant that a man of reasonable caution would take the same action. The ONLY way I could see this going anywhere is if you are carrying with a racked and locked back slide. At that point, you have a gun which upon mere inspection is unloaded, and any seizure of the weapon would likely be unreasonable, as the facts available at the time show there was no legal reason or need to seize the weapon in order to search it.

imported post

at least you mentioned terry!! I as a shopper with the bag I cant be stopped unless a description of the stealer matches me!! wheres the 4thA support?? why would a cop have RAS to call me a probable lier about the loadedness of my gun?? we arent calif! theres no E/check!! the mere presents of a gun is not a justification for a stop!! if gun carriers are probably liers, then would you support cops stopping OCers to make them prove that they are not felons??? this state does not have a stop and identify law, so they cant use that.. i think that within the law, the RCWs and the 2nd, 4th, and 5thA, the only thing the cop can do, besides just chatting you up would be for him to just watch to see if he can see me break the law, then he can investigate!!

imported post

ooookay *backs away from thread, slowly*

Way too many punctuation marks, and a complete misunderstanding of how the law and Terry stops work...

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

complete misunderstanding of how the law and Terry stops work...

Click to expand...

Which comment were you specifically referring to?

I tend to agree, but with less punctuation. If carrying a firearm is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Terry stop (State vs Casad) then why would riding a bus change that. I agree that the officer could ask since he could start with the assumption that the firearm was loaded,at which time you point out why you are legal. Once you have answered his questions correctly, he then has no probably cause to believe that you are lying and should move along to the next suspect.

imported post

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say driving on a road obeying all laws, can a LEO stop the car and demand to see a driver's license just to make sure the driver has one?

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say riding on a bus with a loaded firearm, can a LEO demand to seethe person'sCPL just to make sure the person has one?

imported post

heresolong wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

complete misunderstanding of how the law and Terry stops work...

Click to expand...

Which comment were you specifically referring to?

I tend to agree, but with less punctuation. If carrying a firearm is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Terry stop (State vs Casad) then why would riding a bus change that. I agree that the officer could ask since he could start with the assumption that the firearm was loaded,at which time you point out why you are legal. Once you have answered his questions correctly, he then has no probably cause to believe that you are lying and should move along to the next suspect.

Click to expand...

Openly carrying a firearm in public does not constitute grounds for a Terry stop because there is no reasonable suspicion that the law is being broken - you are legally allowed to open carry a loaded weapon in public. However, because Washington State law requires that you have a concealed pistols license for carry on a bus, not having one and having a loaded pistol is breaking the law. Since rule number one with guns is always assume they're loaded until you have verified they're not, a reasonable officer would assume that any gun being carried on a bus is loaded. This applies even if the person says "oh yeah, it's unloaded" for the same reason that if someone hands you a pistol and says it's unloaded, you would still check - it's reasonable to assume it's loaded.

As a result, because it's reasonable to assume a gun is loaded until checked, and because it is breaking the law to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle without a CPL, a reasonable officer can assume under the Terry rules that you may be breaking the law. Thus, they can check to see if your gun is or is not loaded, because that is the search required to determine to what degree, if any, the law is being broken. This is a different case than walking in public, because it's not illegal to have a loaded gun while not in a vehicle. Hence, there is no reasonable suspicion that the law might be being broken, even if the officer assumes the gun is loaded. No grounds for Terry, and a different case than Casad (which is still unpublished, unlike Terry).

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say driving on a road obeying all laws, can a LEO stop the car and demand to see a driver's license just to make sure the driver has one?

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say riding on a bus with a loaded firearm, can a LEO demand to seethe person'sCPL just to make sure the person has one?

Click to expand...

Yes: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.017 states

Every licensee shall have his driver's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle 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. The offense described in this section is a nonmoving offense.

Click to expand...

combined with http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.64.070

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or ...

Click to expand...

For the second, yes: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

(b) 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 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. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Edit: the reason the person is required to show the license is because not having it makes the carry of a loaded firearm on a bus illegal. Hence, there is no way for a reasonable officer to know, when presented with the initial facts, that you aren't breaking the law. Specifically: the officer only knows that the gun appears loaded and you're in a vehicle. Without seeing a CPL, it appears that you're breaking the law.

imported post

So, another question:

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say practicing medicine, can any LEO in the State of Washington demand to see his license without RAS or PC that a law is being broken?

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

So, another question:

If a person is engaged in a perfectly legal activity, say practicing medicine, can any LEO in the State of Washington demand to see his license without RAS or PC that a law is being broken?

Click to expand...

You keep using "perfectly legal activity" without qualifying. Do you have a point with this?

imported post

You just don't get it, do you?

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

You just don't get it, do you?

Click to expand...

Not what you're trying for, no. You stated "doing a perfectly legal activity." However, there was nothing presented to show the activity was perfectly legal, and a reasonable person with knowledge of the law and the objective facts of the situation could see the law being broken.

Try to stay with me on this -

1) What is the first rule of firearms? If your answer is "always assume they are loaded" proceed onto 2. If not, please go back to remedial guns 101
2) Does loaded carry on a bus require a CPL? If yes, goto 3. If no, please state which exemption to the law you have.
3) At this point, an officer has reason to believe you might be breaking the law. He asks to see a CPL under 9.41.050. Do you have one and show it to him? If so, go to 4. If not, go to 5.
4) You show the officer your CPL. He says "thanks" and leaves you alone because there is no longer objective reason to believe you are breaking the law.
5) You state "I'm not carrying a CPL/I don't have one, but the gun is unloaded." According to 1, above, a reasonable person would not believe that to be true without verifying. At this point, looking at the circumstances, it appears you have a loaded gun in a vehicle while not having a CPL. Hence the reason for a terry stop/reasonable suspicion to search and see if the weapon is loaded.

Before it's verified that you either have a CPL or are actually carrying unloaded, you are NOT engaged in a "perfectly legal activity" by an objective observer. It sucks we have anomalous carry as such, but that's the setup of the current law. Talk to your legislator about it.