More OC freedom than you think.

imported post

I open carry as often as possibleand I do not have a CPL. Sowhen I drive I unload and load again whenI reach mydestination. I also ride my Bicyclewhich is defined as a Vehicle under RCW 46.04.670. So am I in violation? Short answer NO.Iwill tell you the reasons why.

Washington RCW's are written in such a manner, just as many other State Codes, to bevery clear.

So reasonONE, I can carry on a Bicycle or even a Motorcycle openly without a CPL is, IAW RCW 9.41.050 (2)(a) "A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistolIN any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol." It does not say ON a vehicle. Some may say that I am attempting to subvert the law or find a ill-intended loophole. Not so, firstYou would besitting on the bike with the pistol openly exposedin your holster, you cannot carry it IN only ON, which is not specified by RCW 9.41.050 (2)(a). The same applies to a Motorcycle. The purpose of RCW 9.41.050 is primarily for transport of a loadedpistol in a vehicle, because once you close the door you are concealing it within the confine of the vehicle doors and cab.

Reason TWO, IAWRCW 9.41.060 (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;

I ride my bicycle for recreation and or exercise.

"SUCH AS" means to -to include, but not limited to, similar to by type or characteristics. To ride a Bicycle is similar to, bytype of outdoor activity, and characteristics as Horseback riding. It is a mode of conveyance, and again you cannot rideIN a horse. The same could be applied whengoing to the shooting range while in your car, truck or, motorcycle because it is similar to an activity SUCH AS Hunting as specified in RCW 9.41.060 (8). This also means you could conceal a pistol while doing these activities because RCW 9.41.060 (8) exempts you from RCW 9.41.050.

You could also,depending on the definitionsay thathiking is walking anywhere in any fashion, be it for examplein the woods, main street, or the mall. And furthermore, with this line of thinking you could carry concealed tomain street, or the mall in your vehicle without a CPL, because you are going to recreation, you are going to hike when you get out of your vehicle at your destination.

So now that I am done. If anyone does not agree with me please give me your opinion.

Thanks.

imported post

I disagree that you can lawfully carry a pistol while operating a motorcycle. We have been through the "in vs. on" debate before. Regardless of what the law actually says it is open to interpretation and that includes legislative intent.

Secondly I highly doubt that a judge/jury will rule in your favor that riding a bicycle down to the corner store or around greenlake as a lawful outdoor activity considering all present circumstances. This law was clearly written with the intent to allow persons in the wilderness to have the ability to protect themselves without the need for a CPL.

imported post

The only thing I will agree with you is that "on" a vehicle would be very hard to prosecute. Consider http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.460 "Loaded firearm in vehicle" which states "in or on".

I would argue that legislative intent is that a weapon inside a vehicle is effectively concealed from officer view upon approach, and should therefore be considered a concealed weapon.

I would not stand by your outdoor activity analysis. The "such as" defines the intent to be clearly "outdoorsy" type activities - you might get away with it on a mountain bike in the mountains, but good luck riding around the city.

imported post

"Hiking" to the mall or main street would most likely be considered running errands and not an outdoor activity. If you are riding your bike on something like the the Chehalis Western Trail, you could probably make an argument for it.

And where to you conceal your pistol when you ride your bike? Spandex doesn't give too many options to conceal. I guess you could bring a backpack or fanny pack.

imported post

That is how I have always understood it also. It is just about as clear as possible.

As far as legislative intent, they could have said:
in or on a vehicle
while operating a vehicle or as a passenger of a vehicle


But they didn't. IMO the State of Washington doesn't want your loaded pistol concealed by anything, any way, shape or form without a CPL. Doors, windows, etc do this, but a motorcycle does not.

Think about it. The only difference between OCing on foot vs OCing on a MC is the speed at which you are traveling.

I turn 21 in two months and fully intend to OC on my motorcycle for as long as it takes for my CPL to be issued to me.

imported post

Brad Cowin wrote:

That is how I have always understood it also. It is just about as clear as possible.

As far as legislative intent, they could have said:
in or on a vehicle
while operating a vehicle or as a passenger of a vehicle


But they didn't. IMO the State of Washington doesn't want your loaded pistol concealed by anything, any way, shape or form without a CPL. Doors, windows, etc do this, but a motorcycle does not.

Click to expand...

If that were true then they would not have built in an exemption for traveling to and from a lawful outdoor activity or traveling to and from a organized club for target practice.

They do not want every tom, dick, and harry carrying around a loaded pistol is the way I see their intent.

imported post

I am falling back on an example of Texas law where Im from.

The word "Traveling" never was defined as a certain distance in regard to carrying a loaded pistol in your vehicle.

Because of this a citizen was stopped with a loaded pistol in his truck with out a CCW/CPL he fell back on the lack of clarity on the word traveling. It was determined by the judge and jury that he was not guilty because traveling could be 1 foot to the length of Texas. The law stood and it allowed all Texans to follow his example.

Sound familiar, in , on, such as, and hiking is by definition not limited its environment.

If we had a true following of the 2nd amendment we would not need to have this discussion at all.

imported post

Kind of touching on a secondary point there... And as we all know, every Tom, Dick, and Harry can already carry around a loaded pistol in Washington. In their car, truck, van, suv, etc in is only 2 seconds away from being loaded.

If you really think that is the intent, why doesn't the RCW use say in or on a vehicle? Why dont we have to have our guns locked up and out of reach with the ammo stored separately? Why is the only requirement to OC to be 21? Why is WA a shall issue state?

And back to motorcycle OC; why does the RCW for loaded handgun carry say IN a vehicle, but the RCW prohibiting loaded long gun carry say in AND on a vehicle? Was this just an oversight by our lawmakers? Or was it only to prevent some one from carrying concealed in their car?

imported post

Brad Cowin wrote:

Kind of touching on a secondary point there... And as we all know, every Tom, Dick, and Harry can already carry around a loaded pistol in Washington. In their car, truck, van, suv, etc in is only 2 seconds away from being loaded.

If you really think that is the intent, why doesn't the RCW use say in or on a vehicle? Why dont we have to have our guns locked up and out of reach with the ammo stored separately? Why is the only requirement to OC to be 21? Why is WA a shall issue state?

And back to motorcycle OC; why does the RCW for loaded handgun carry say IN a vehicle, but the RCW prohibiting loaded long gun carry say in AND on a vehicle? Was this just an oversight by our lawmakers? Or was it only to prevent some one from carrying concealed in their car?

Click to expand...

The RCW concerning longarms is a DFW law. RCW 9.41 was more than likely an oversight by the lawmakers. The hunting code is written that way because it is not uncommon for people to hunt on ATV's and it also makes it unlawful to lean a loaded rifle against your vehicle as well.

These laws serve two completely different purposes and people need to quit comparing them.

To answer all your other questions: Because the law says so.

imported post

The law is supposed to be written so the average citizen could understand it and operate within the limits.

That is what I have done. I read it and interpreted it without regard to lawmakers INTENT. There intent is unwritten in the "SUCH AS" argument. I do not follow the law based on unwritten words, they equate to feelings and emotions, Which is not a facet of written laws. Coming from 10 yrs of LEO experience there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, and there is no spirit in the black and white letters in the RCW, because men and women are held to account with long prison sentences based upon what EXACTLY the law says, not the underlying intent from a group of legislators in the house chambers We don't see INTENT when we read the RCW's.

As far as RCW 77.15.460 goes it further confirms that a bicycle although a Vehicle can have a rider OCing with no CPL, because RCW 77.15.460 clearly defines the violation in regard to a MOTOR VEHICLE.

The bottom line is there should be no fee nor any registering of name to carry concealed. Therefore there would be no argument of NO CPL ON A BIKE, IN VS. ON, or, SUCH AS. I would like to have every state have carry laws that are similar to Vermont. CC with no permit/license. WHY you ask because it is unconstitutional to register or tax a fundamental god given right. Reference LAMONT v. POSTMASTER GENERAL.

I say with the right jury and judge a precedence could be set.
Until the laws changes and these issues are addressed and clarified I will continue to operate as they have been written. As far as unjust laws that violate the constitution impede me, I will continue not to abide in them. I CC from time to time with no CPL and now you know the reason why. I would 99.999% of the time not ever be discovered to be carrying in this manner unless its to save a life which could be my family's or my own life, or that of another. So if I have no CPL but saved a life would they send me away for that. But as some of you have stated INTENT, INTENT, "the laws are about intent". If this was the case I would be a free man after the incident because my INTENT was to abide in the constitution and to innocently defend myself without Government intervention.

If your not a member of OATHKEEPERS.ORG check it out. Re-affirm your oath, or swear to it for the first time. Join. As Thomas Jefferson said "We reserve the spirit of resistance" to unconstitutional laws.

imported post

OC-Aviator, I do agree with you but if you do not think that the courts interpret the law and they do it by looking at legislative intent then I do not know what to say. If you actually have 10 years of LEO experience you would know this.

I am not sure why you come on here and brag about violating the law which has stood up to constitutional muster more than once. If you choose to break the law that is your decision. I will not miss any sleep for you when you get caught, charged, and convicted.

imported post

Okay....I will concede that I am making waves to rise outside the parameter of the law for CC. We make waves in society to make others aware by merely OCing, but I just pray that someday someone will step forward and say requiring CC permits/licensing is not right.

I was not bragging. Just expressing how I felt about the law by peaceful action, on what I believe and many others is an infringement. Check out the link.



http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm