• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

tired of the seatcarry.com ad.

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

can we get a new ad? The seat carry ad is so lame. by any of the shelf truck bench seat cover and it has one that goes all the way across. this is not new. How about making a holster that you can attach under your dash, or on a center console or to the seat belt buckle, so you can carry there. Or an Idea I had, was an indash insert that would replace where cd cubbies are. Made to fit certain guns, semi autos, you slide your weapon in and it sits flush where the back of the grip makes it look like a plastic blank in the dash, and you push it to pop it out.Would be easier than us fat white guys trying to reach down with a belly in the way.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

The fact that the item being advertised is of no interest to you is, well, of interest to you. If they want to keep advertising (and, presumeably, helping to pay for this site's hosting costs) then more power to them!
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

I don't like the pouch idea, as the trigger isn't protected when you reach in. What you might wanna try is the rig I use.
vhm_4.jpg

www.gumcreekcustoms.com

I use this, properly sized with a 1911, thumb break is reversed so you can use it right handed. Thumb break goes over back of slide. I keep an extended 10 round mag with FMJs in the mag pouch on the front of the holster. Its a DeSantis N87 holster with the N99 thumb break. The mount can use rigid belt loops, like on your blackhawk, or belt clips. Think about the holster your going to use as it is easier with a wrong sided holster.

I'll put some pics up of my rig tomorrow.
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

M1Gunr wrote:
Run Firefox as a browser. Add the Ad Blocker Plus extension. Right click the ad, chose block the ad, issue resolved......

WHOOAAAA IT DISSAPEARED!!!!! It only took 20 seconds to download and restart and walla!

+1 to you.
 

retrodad

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
168
Location
Greater Seattle Area
imported post

seattleric007 wrote:
Dosen't the gun have to be on your person in WA state, if loaded and in a car?
You are correct, as far as I know...
RCW 9.41.050

(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.
I've assumed that (i) & (ii) go together. But does the closing 'or' construe that (i) & (ii) are mutually exclusive? Meaning, as long as you have your CPL on you and you're in the vehicle, you can slip your pistol into a rig like simmonsjoe's (pictured above)?
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

Dosen't the gun have to be on your person in WA state, if loaded and in a car?

Yes.

Although through gramatical sleight of hand, some around here have interpreted it to mean that the loaded handgun can be anywhere in the car. These people are bunco artists of the worst order. They might even be witches. :D:p
 

retrodad

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
168
Location
Greater Seattle Area
imported post

deanf wrote:
Dosen't the gun have to be on your person in WA state, if loaded and in a car?

Yes.

Although through gramatical sleight of hand, some around here have interpreted it to mean that the loaded handgun can be anywhere in the car. These people are bunco artists of the worst order. They might even be witches. :D:p
My understanding has always been that it has to be on your person. I was just asking, deanf, after having not read the RCW for some time and re-reading just now.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

My understanding is if you have a cpl you can have it in the vehicle on the seat next to you, in glovebox, under seat, in your lap, underseat, as long as you are in the vehicle, you have to have it locked up if you leave it in the vehicle and you get out. thats the way somebody here explained it to me a while back.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
My understanding is if you have a cpl you can have it in the vehicle on the seat next to you, in glovebox, under seat, in your lap, underseat, as long as you are in the vehicle, you have to have it locked up if you leave it in the vehicle and you get out. thats the way somebody here explained it to me a while back.
Did you read above posts? specifically the one quoting the legal code of WA.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Jamfish wrote:
seattleric007 wrote:
Dosen't the gun have to be on your person in WA state, if loaded and in a car?
You are correct, as far as I know...
RCW 9.41.050

(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.
I've assumed that (i) & (ii) go together. But does the closing 'or' construe that (i) & (ii) are mutually exclusive? Meaning, as long as you have your CPL on you and you're in the vehicle, you can slip your pistol into a rig like simmonsjoe's (pictured above)?
Not mutually exclusive, but equally optional.

I am not a lawyer and I am not a resident of the state in question, but as a lifelong native English speaker who studies various sorts of requirements for a living, it is plainly obvious to me that no mater what the intent of the Washington State legislature might have been, this small portion of the law actually says that you may have a gun in a car, but it is not required to be on your person.

Although I can understand how someone could mis-interpret it, it just simply does not say that you must always have the gun on your person.

This portion of the law in very reduced complexity says:

You may not have a gun in a car unless you have a concealed permit, and: A, B, or C.

Where A is that it must be on your person.
B is that you must be in the vehicle if the gun is in the vehicle.
C is that if you are not in the vehicle, the gun must be secured.

The English says it perfectly, and in my opinion option C reinforces the idea that the intent of the law is simply to ensure that there will not be a gun left unattended and unsecured in a car.

In order to interpret that you must have the gun on your person at all times, option B becomes nonsensical, because there would be no way for you to not be in the vehicle if the gun was in the vehicle.

Finally, the list is structured A, B, or C. If the intent was for A to always be true, then not only is B nonsensical, the words leading up to the list would have to be changed to say:

You may not have a gun in a car unless you have a CHP, and A.

At that point, options B and C are orphaned from any coherent thought and are undefined.

When a list is given, and a logical operator is provided at the end like it is here, it is assumed that the same operator applies to all the members of the list. If you say A, B or C, you cannot infer A and B or C. If you think this is incorrect, go to a restaurant where the menu says your dinner comes with a salad, a side dish, or a dessert, and see what happens when you demand 2 or 3 of the three options to be included with your original dinner price! ;)

Just my late night rambling thoughts.

TFred

ETA: P.S. it appears to me that option A is actually not needed and that the law would be virtually identical without it. However, I would suppose they included it, because that is how the vast majority of guns in vehicles actually happen, being on the person with the permit...
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
imported post

Amzbrady,

This was a totally uncalled for attack on a sponsor whose support of the forum has been substantial and much appreciated!

While it is appropriate to discuss whether a particular product might run afoul of unique laws in specific states, bashing a sponsor just for the fun of it is completely unacceptable!


John
 
Top