Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 9.41.050 Vehicle Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    Does 9.41.050 really prohibit loaded carry by CPL holder in a vehicle unless the pistol is "on the licensee's person"? (while the licensee is not away from the vehicle)

    So, in other words, if I'm a CPL holder traveling or otherwise in a vehicle with my loaded pistol, the pistol cannot be merely concealed in the vehicle, it must be "on my person"?

    That appears to be the way the law is worded, but I must be having a brain fart or something. You can have the pistol under the seat, in the glove box, etc. can't you?



  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:
    Does 9.41.050 really prohibit loaded carry by CPL holder in a vehicle unless the pistol is "on the licensee's person"? (while the licensee is not away from the vehicle)

    So, in other words, if I'm a CPL holder traveling or otherwise in a vehicle with my loaded pistol, the pistol cannot be merely concealed in the vehicle, it must be "on my person"?

    That appears to be the way the law is worded, but I must be having a brain fart or something. You can have the pistol under the seat, in the glove box, etc. can't you?

    with a CPL on your person,your loaded gun can be anywhere, on you, under you, glove box, etc. never leave your loaded gunin the car if you get out of the car!

    take it with you or unload it, thencover it from view and lock the car up!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:
    kwiebe wrote:
    Does 9.41.050 really prohibit loaded carry by CPL holder in a vehicle unless the pistol is "on the licensee's person"? (while the licensee is not away from the vehicle)

    So, in other words, if I'm a CPL holder traveling or otherwise in a vehicle with my loaded pistol, the pistol cannot be merely concealed in the vehicle, it must be "on my person"?

    That appears to be the way the law is worded, but I must be having a brain fart or something. You can have the pistol under the seat, in the glove box, etc. can't you?

    with a CPL on your person,your loaded gun can be anywhere, on you, under you, glove box, etc. never leave your loaded gunin the car if you get out of the car!

    take it with you or unload it, thencover it from view and lock the car up!
    The law isn't talking about the CPL being on your person, it says the pistol must be on your person. I could be wrong, but to me, in the glove box is not "on your person".

    I couldn't find a definition, btw.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    This is such a horrible misconception.

    Many people fail to see the "or" between the items listed in this RCW.

    It does NOT have to be on your person. Basically all that section is saying is it can be on your person or in your vehicle. However, if it is in your vehicle you cannot leave it in there alone with another person who is not licensed. And if your out of your vehicle and leaving it, it must be secured and out of sight.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    the phrasing in 9.41.050 (2) says you gotta have a CPL to put a loaded gun in a car.

    then the pistol gotta be on you, (or) your in the car while the pistol is in the car.

    then if you get out of the car the pistolgotta behidden from view and the car locked!

    i misspoke earlier, the pistol hidden and locked in the car does not need to be unloaded, but that would only be ok if nobody else was in the car.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  6. #6
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    EOD wrote:
    This is such a horrible misconception.

    Many people fail to see the "or" between the items listed in this RCW.

    It does NOT have to be on your person. Basically all that section is saying is it can be on your person or in your vehicle. However, if it is in your vehicle you cannot leave it in there alone with another person who is not licensed. And if your out of your vehicle and leaving it, it must be secured and out of sight.
    I found a May 09 thread on this that eluded me at first:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26103-1.html

    I don't think it's as simple as recognizing there is an "or" in the law (because there is also an "and" - right between the parts that state you must have a CPL and the pistol must be on your person). I don't think an "or" further downstream can wipe out the "and" between those two passages. Poorly constructed? Probably.

    my opinion

  7. #7
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    ive read that thread before! these guys can parse all the ors, ands, commas, quotes till they are red in the face. they can legalize a cpl holder carrying 3 guns out to the car, then driving to pick up 3 gang bangers to do a driveby shooting!

    you just want to be legal as you go about your buzinness!

    yougatta have a cpl to put your loaded gun in a car

    you nedd to be in control of the gun all the time the gun is in the car

    when you get outa the car take the gun with you or cover the gun and lock the carwith no one else in the car.

    YOU are in legal control of the gun. nobody else is in control of the gun!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:
    EOD wrote:
    This is such a horrible misconception.

    Many people fail to see the "or" between the items listed in this RCW.

    It does NOT have to be on your person. Basically all that section is saying is it can be on your person or in your vehicle. However, if it is in your vehicle you cannot leave it in there alone with another person who is not licensed. And if your out of your vehicle and leaving it, it must be secured and out of sight.
    I found a May 09 thread on this that eluded me at first:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26103-1.html

    I don't think it's as simple as recognizing there is an "or" in the law (because there is also an "and" - right between the parts that state you must have a CPL and the pistol must be on your person). I don't think an "or" further downstream can wipe out the "and" between those two passages. Poorly constructed? Probably.

    my opinion
    An "or" in between a series of statements implies that all are "or". this wording is used throughout the rcw's and that is the meaning it is given.

    All I know is that I would never even think of hooking someone up for it not being on their person.

  9. #9

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

    Post imported post

    The relevant part of 9.41.050 that reads:

    "(2)(a) 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:
    (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person,
    (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or
    (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."

    Now lets break it down:

    The "opening" parts says you can't "carry" (ie have it on you) or "place" (ie put it in) a vehicle unless you have a CPL. This is the "primary" requirement.

    It then says in ADDITION to that requirement (use of the word "and") ONE of the following things must also be true:

    It is on you,
    You are in the vehicle, or
    You are away from the vehicle and it is locked and out of sight.

    The "or" at the end of ii is what tells us only one of these 3 items needs to be in play. In a comma separated list, an "or" or an "and" before the last item is applied to all items in that list.

    "This, this, or this" means one of the things
    "This, this, and this" means all of the things.

    Even if you toss the meaning of the grammatical structure, and look at it logically only one CAN be in play.

    If you have your gun physically on you (i), how can the the gun be in the car if you are not? If you are not in the car, then iii would apply. So clearly ii must be what allows off body carry while in the car (or other vehicle) since ii can ONLY happen in the absence of i and iii.

    i is VERY clear about being on your "person" if absolute physical possession was a requirement there would be no need for ii.



  10. #10
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    911Boss wrote:
    The relevant part of 9.41.050 that reads:

    "(2)(a) 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:
    (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person,
    (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or
    (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."

    Now lets break it down:

    The "opening" parts says you can't "carry" (ie have it on you) or "place" (ie put it in) a vehicle unless you have a CPL. This is the "primary" requirement.

    It then says in ADDITION to that requirement (use of the word "and") ONE of the following things must also be true:

    It is on you,
    You are in the vehicle, or
    You are away from the vehicle and it is locked and out of sight.

    The "or" at the end of ii is what tells us only one of these 3 items needs to be in play. In a comma separated list, an "or" or an "and" before the last item is applied to all items in that list.

    "This, this, or this" means one of the things
    "This, this, and this" means all of the things.

    Even if you toss the meaning of the grammatical structure, and look at it logically only one CAN be in play.

    If you have your gun physically on you (i), how can the the gun be in the car if you are not? If you are not in the car, then iii would apply. So clearly ii must be what allows off body carry while in the car (or other vehicle) since ii can ONLY happen in the absence of i and iii.

    i is VERY clear about being on your "person" if absolute physical possession was a requirement there would be no need for ii.


    Thanks. That was the best explanation I read from either thread. I think what was throwing me is I was not grouping the i, ii, iii items together properly. Very good job explaining.

Posting Permissions

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