Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Open or Concealed Carry during outdoor activity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    This year I was shown the section of the RCW below that allows for concealed carry or open carry (loaded)in your vehicle when traveling to and from a lawful recreational activity.

    After my friend explained what this entailed I called the Fish & Wildlife Enforecment office and spoke to an officer regarding exactly what this law allows an individual to do.

    The officer stated that when travelling to, from and during your recreational activity you could carry just as if you had a CPL. Same rules apply just the allowance for recreational activities.

    Anyone else heard of this. Seems to me a real big loophole since I can define outdoor recreational activity as pretty much anything.



    RCW 9.41.060
    Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

    The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:

    ........

    (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;



  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the forum!!!!!!!

    I am probably not the best guy to answer you question, but would be careful and have proof that you were engaged in or going to be engaged in this activity. You could a zealous prosecutor who doesn't feel the same way.

    For more info try searching this state in the above search box there has been many discussions on this topic.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    Welcome Aboard ! - I am sure there are many here that can help you with that question. Hope to see ya around

    Bat
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    (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;


    This is the important part. ie if you stop at Wall Mart on the way it becomes very questionable

    Just be careful.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    My girlfriend uses these provisions regularly now. When she does, she is careful. She has her fishing license on her, as well as her pole and tackle box or, a deer tag and her .30-06 for example during that season. A couple other ways that we will use it but haven't yet:
    -every time we are on our way to the pit (active, family owned) to shoot,camp or hike, etc WITH gear bag, tent, FAK and all the other goodies.
    -when she goes to our friend's ranch to ride horses. Basically the whole time we are out in the boonies/away from home for a weekend of outdoor activities. Much of that time is on private property, though.

    Make sure it's obvious that you're within the law and not stretching outside of what some might consider legitimate outdoor activities keeping the provisional list in mind. I hope that helps some.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    I own horses and keep some of their tack in my car 24/7. I find the provision quoted above absolutely thrilling.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Kyote wrote:
    I own horses and keep some of their tack in my car 24/7. I find the provision quoted above absolutely thrilling.
    Considering all the attendant circumstances would be the phrase that should echo in your head. I would not consider that good enough.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    When you have a butt load of horse equipment with you and the majority of your time is related to horses then the "attendant circumstances" would be nearly always met. I am always going to my horses, riding my horses, going to my friends' houses (where they have horses), going to the homes of my family (where they have horses), going places to get things for my horses, etc. The ONLY time that I can see where the "attendant circumstances" would not be met is on the drive INTO work, and since after work I go directly to the horses then I'm not sure you couldn't make the argument that the job is merely a pit stop in the "horse activities". I don't think you understand how much horses are an actual lifestyle.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lante's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    122

    Post imported post

    As near as I can tell this statue has never been challenged in court. Nothing in the appellate records I looked at cite this section of the RCW. I am sure there are better members on here at looking this stuff up but I didn't see anything.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Kyote wrote:
    When you have a butt load of horse equipment with you and the majority of your time is related to horses then the "attendant circumstances" would be nearly always met. I am always going to my horses, riding my horses, going to my friends' houses (where they have horses), going to the homes of my family (where they have horses), going places to get things for my horses, etc. The ONLY time that I can see where the "attendant circumstances" would not be met is on the drive INTO work, and since after work I go directly to the horses then I'm not sure you couldn't make the argument that the job is merely a pit stop in the "horse activities". I don't think you understand how much horses are an actual lifestyle.
    That's different, you're a rare exception, a horse-obsessed gun toter. There was no way for me to know that so why accuse andassumenaivety?

    Feel free to take it along and be the guinea court case, or just conceal well. I doubt they would prosecute if it's only seen doing it's legitimate job, protecting you.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I'd really recommend that those advising carrying under a pretext stop doing so.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    I'd really recommend that those advising carrying under a pretext stop doing so.
    Expand please?

    The law specifically says "outdoor activities", not so long ago there was a lot of debate if we could "legally" open carry.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    SVG,

    "Expand"? How about we just reread what the OP wrote:

    Seems to me a real big loophole since I can define outdoor recreational activity as pretty much anything.
    Especially in light of the following wording from the quoted RCW:

    only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances,

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    SVG,

    "Expand"? How about we just reread what the OP wrote:

    Seems to me a real big loophole since I can define outdoor recreational activity as pretty much anything.
    Especially in light of the following wording from the quoted RCW:

    only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances,
    Yep but your post didn't refer to OP,

    I'd really recommend that those advising carrying under a pretext stop doing so.
    I agree the law is vague and it doesn'tinclude shopping or getting your hair done.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    kparker wrote:
    I'd really recommend that those advising carrying under a pretext stop doing so.
    I tend to agree, and this is my reasoning:

    It's up to the prosecution to prove that you violated a law. They find a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a CPL holder present, they have proven that you have violated RCW 9.41.050 (sort of... a person can always claim that a CPL holder actually placed the gun there, which is what the law states - and they then left it there...)

    It is then up to the defendant to prove that he/she falls under an exception to the law specified in 9.41.060. The caution is, if you are going to carry under an exception listed in 9.41.060 a person needs to make sure they have enough credible evidence to prove that exception to a judge and/or jury.

    Now, if you can convince the cop at the scene that you are carrying under an exception in 9.41.060 then he wouldn't cite you in the first place. However, you can show him a hunting license, a deer tag, a hunting area map, and a hunting rifle, if he chooses not to believe you, he will cite you anyway and you will be left proving your exception to a judge.

    Question: Does an outdoor market or an outdoor festival count as an outdoor recreational activity? I go there for recreation and it's outdoors.
    Have they actually proven you have violated the law? I would think that they have not done so until they have proven that you were not legally engaged in going to or from an approved outdoor activity. It is not up to the citizen to prove his or her innocence it is up to the state to prove their guilt. At least we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. Has our country degenerated into a police state while I've spent the last 36 years of my life helping to keep us free?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    kparker wrote:
    I'd really recommend that those advising carrying under a pretext stop doing so.
    I tend to agree, and this is my reasoning:

    It's up to the prosecution to prove that you violated a law. They find a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a CPL holder present, they have proven that you have violated RCW 9.41.050 (sort of... a person can always claim that a CPL holder actually placed the gun there, which is what the law states - and they then left it there...)
    *facepalm* No, no, no, no! NavyLT and especially kparker: There is an exception made in the law to carry when engaged in legitimate outdoor activities that are similar in type to the ones described. Thus, the OP is within the law, period. All you're advising is to not do it because police might not know the law. In my eyes that's the same as saying, "Don't open carry because not all police know that it's legal."

    18-21 crowd: Carry any time you can legally get away with it. Use this exception of the normal rules to exercise your rights!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    There is an exception made in the law to carry when engaged in legitimate outdoor activities that are similar in type to the ones described.
    Yes, indeed, and I certainly don't mean to advise people not to take advantage of this when they are actually engaged in legitimate outdoor activities. It's the "I've always got my xyz stuff with me so I'm always engaged in outdoor activities" ruse that I'm objecting to.

    And please, please read this carefully: I'm not saying what I think the law should be here, just saying what it is.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    There is an exception made in the law to carry when engaged in legitimate outdoor activities that are similar in type to the ones described.
    Yes, indeed, and I certainly don't mean to advise people not to take advantage of this when they are actually engaged in legitimate outdoor activities. It's the "I've always got my xyz stuff with me so I'm always engaged in outdoor activities" ruse that I'm objecting to.

    And please, please read this carefully: I'm not saying what I think the law should be here, just saying what it is.
    Then we are in complete agreement and are saying the same thing in our own ways.

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    If the cop believes that you are going to/from an outdoor activity, then you are good to go. If the cop does not believe you, then he will give you a citation and you will have to prove it in court.
    Regardless of all the opinions expressed here, this is really the way it will work. It might help to be wearing clothing appropriate for the "activity" you claim to be en-route to as well as some appropriate support gear. I don't think the claim of being on the way to an outdoor activity will hold much water if you get stopped and questioned at 1:30 AM leaving a movie theater or club.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

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