Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Attorney General and WDFW

  1. #1
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Well, I received a long awaited letter from the AG the other day. Unfortunately it was not the response I had hoped for. (The attachment is the letter.) It appears that WDFW can determine what kind of equipment that can be in possession while in the field. While I would like to think that RCW 9.41.060 gives us this right per this exception:







    RCW 9.41.060
    Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

    The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to 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 suspect my next line of approach would be to put pressure on the legislator level? Thanks for any advice and feedback I can get on this gentlemen

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Ok, I think you're right and the lawyer is confused. He quotes RCW 77.12.047(1)(c). This states
    (1) The commission may adopt, amend, or repeal rules as follows:

    (a) Specifying the times when the taking of wildlife, fish, or shellfish is lawful or unlawful.

    (b) Specifying the areas and waters in which the taking and possession of wildlife, fish, or shellfish is lawful or unlawful.

    (c) Specifying and defining the gear, appliances, or other equipment and methods that may be used to take wildlife, fish, or shellfish, and specifying the times, places, and manner in which the equipment may be used or possessed.
    Note the "That may be used to take". If you are hunting with a bow during bow season and carrying a pistol for protection, you are not hunting with the pistol, you're carrying in accordance with other law. If you were to be hunting with a pistol during bow season, then you would be violating this law. It's not a matter of preemption (RCW 9.41.290) but one of lawful carry while conducting lawful outdoor activities.

    The law he's quoting shows that WDFW can enact law on HOW you can HUNT and FISH, but not whether or not you can carry for personal defense while performing those activities. He even says that the courts agree that the hunting laws don't "excessively burden the right to bear arms".

    I think you need to discuss this with him further to get clarification, but it sounds like he is saying that you can carry for protection AND WDFW can regulate the method and equipment used to take game.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    The wording on that partdoes make it look like that they can only regulate what can be used to take and dispatch game, but this is where I believe the cinch er is,

    "manner in which the equipment may be used or possessed."

    I cant understand how the possession of an item, which can be legally possessed on your person under any other circumstance, can be trumped bythe fact that I am engaged in an activitythat is also legal. Especially when we consider the fact that there is already an RCW that states that it is in fact legal.



    I am working on my reply, to the AG, but it seems that I can get through half of the letter without deleting most of it for ranting.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Sparky508 wrote:
    The wording on that partdoes make it look like that they can only regulate what can be used to take and dispatch game, but this is where I believe the cinch er is,

    "manner in which the equipment may be used or possessed."

    I cant understand how the possession of an item, which can be legally possessed on your person under any other circumstance, can be trumped bythe fact that I am engaged in an activitythat is also legal. Especially when we consider the fact that there is already an RCW that states that it is in fact legal.



    I am working on my reply, to the AG, but it seems that I can get through half of the letter without deleting most of it for ranting.
    Look at the whole of the sentence, note especially they specify THE equipment...they refer only to that equipment refers to that used for hunting.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Nice call.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I had a pistol on my belt while towing my boat to go fishing. Backing the truck at the ramp, a State Game Warden stopped me and I got out. He didn't bat an eye. He put me through the hoops, inspecting my boat and told me I had to make the registration letters/numbers stand out so they could be read from a distance and ticketed me on that. I was very cooperative with all the "yessir Mr. Johnson's" as appropriate. I fixed the letters/numbers the next day. We are a small town and Mr. Johnson knew who I was, I am sure. I know all the sheriffs and they know I am armed and permitted. I can't think of anyone in our tiny town who isn't armed. Small towns in Washington State are great.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    I think most of the enforcement officers are more than reasonable. I had carried for years while bowhunting, and never had an issue with the wardens. I'm pretty sure that they can respect why a guy would want to be able to have something a little more substantial on his hip than a couple of broadheads.

Posting Permissions

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