Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 72

Thread: Off-person carry in vehicle with CPL illegal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    All you guys who think off-person carry in a car is ok with CPL saw this thread, right?

  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    All you guys who think off-person carry in a car is ok with CPL saw this thread, right?
    Good info.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    All you guys who think off-person carry in a car is ok with CPL saw this thread, right?
    Saw it, and it's interesting that under an old law it was interpreted to mean it had to be on the person. But without knowing what that old law said, and what the legislative intent was when it was changed, it's hard to say that the current law would beinterpreted the same.

    Is there any way to find the wording of the old law?
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    there was an opinion issued on this in the 80's from Eikenberry's office. it says, in essence, that it IS LEGAL to have a loaded gun in a car that is not on your person if you have a CPL. if you would like the PDF of it, send me a PM with your email addy and i'll email it to you tomorrow. i got the PDF from Marty Hayes at FAS.

    Bobby

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    on washingtons most wanted i think the king or pierce county sheriff was discussing dealing with an officer when pulled over concealed carrying, and he had his pistol sitting on the passenger sit in plain view

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    The state patrol has warned me twice now that keeping my loaded gun in the glove compartment is illegal even though I have a CPL. I politely tell them that I disagree and they haven't pushed it any further. The last officer told me that it's been discussed within their office and seems to be open for interpretation.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    there was an opinion issued on this in the 80's from Eikenberry's office. it says, in essence, that it IS LEGAL to have a loaded gun in a car that is not on your person if you have a CPL. if you would like the PDF of it, send me a PM with your email addy and i'll email it to you tomorrow. i got the PDF from Marty Hayes at FAS.

    Bobby
    Would you post the reference number and year please (AGO 19XX NO. XX). I can look it up with that myself. Thanks.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    This law, like every other concerning gun rights (or anything for that matter), is extremely ambiguous. What about the man who carries his gun in his briefcase or the woman who carries in her purse? If s/he lays his/her briefcase/purse beside them in the empty seat on the bus is s/he technically breaking the law? I don't think so. Also, I'd not recommend just 'laying' your pistol in your seat for two reasons. Ever have to slam on your brakes and watch your pistol fly around your truck cabin? I have. Not fun. Secondly, suppose someone who was in a higher up car looked down and saw a pistol just chilling in the passenger seat? 9/10 they're gonna call 911 for a potential road rage person about to crack. While you're not breaking the law I'm sure you'd have a good time explaining that to the cops who responded. I'd figure out a more secure way to have your pistol readily accessible. There are plenty of options out there, some of them even have banner ads on this forum.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    ok, i'm looking at the letter and it is not a formal opinion of the AG. it's a letter to
    Senator Kent Pullen dated March 13, 1987 and it's written by Richard A. Heath, Sr, Assistant Attorney General. this is a copy & pasted version of the PDF so it's pretty screwed up but you can get the jist of it. can anyone host a PDF and make a link to it so people can view and print it? there is no AG # on the document.

    Kcrt liikcrrhcrr r
    ATTOII N EY G I-:l.l lil(A L OI: WASI-l I NG'fON

    March 13, 1987
    Honorable Kent Pullen
    State Senator, 47th 0istrict
    !2-A Legislatf ve Building
    0lympia, Hashington 98504
    Dear Senator Pullen:
    Your question concerning the proper interpretation of RCH 9.41 .050(3)
    has been referred to me for reply. The specific question which you have
    asked is:
    llay a person who possesses a val id concealed weapon permit,
    and who is within a vehicle, legally possess a loaded pistol . within the vehicle which is not on'his or her person?
    For the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that your question should
    be answered in the affirmative.
    RCt.| 9.41.050(3) provides: (Now Rctr 9.4r.050(2))
    A person shall not carry'or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle
    unless the person has a I icense to carry a concealed weapon
    and: (a) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (b) the'licensee
    is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there,
    or (c) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol
    is locked within the vehicle and concealed frorn view from outside
    the vehicle.
    The literal and granmatical construction of this statute requires subparts (a), (b) and (c) to be read in the disjunctive, i.e., as if the word "oru
    appeared between (a) and (b). llhen read in that manner it is clear that
    a loaded pistol need not be carried on one's person when that person is
    in the vehicle.
    A basic rule of statutory construction is that
    is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for
    to mean anything different than what it literally
    87 tln.2d 7BA, 55 P.2d 340 (lSZ01
    when the language used
    construing the language
    says. llatfield Y. Gree11,
    l{ono rabl e Ken t Pul I en
    Harch 13, 1987
    Page 2
    There are two exceptions to this rule. If a literal reading. Oljdy::t
    i6ii,ia -resul ts ii wir t not be fol lowed. state y. Keller, 98 rln.2d 725,
    657P.2dl384rrgg3j.tnthiscase'noaffi.irthestatute
    is read to alliw a person not to have to carry the pistol while he or
    she is in the car.
    The second exception applies to those situations in which a literal reading
    of the statute'is ouviously contrary to legislative intent. Silver Shores
    lbbile Home park, Inc. v. city.of Ev , Bl nn.Zd ol8,3ts p-Es pTiliII
    f"t House 3:lt'600 lthg qili
    itit imended RCl.l 9.41.050 tdits current languagel describes the law before
    and after the bill as follows:
    BACKGR0UND: [The law before HB 600]
    Anyone who carries a loided pistol in a vehicle must carry it
    on-onl't person. If it is not on one's person, the weapon must
    be unloaded. There is no provision for carrying or leaving
    a weapon,loaded or unloaded, in a car.
    SUMMRY: [The law after HB 600]
    O"'r^roaded, licensed pistol may be left in a vehicle, but only
    ii the pistbl is locked in the vehicle and concealed from view.
    A loaded, licensed pistol may be carried or placed in a vehicle
    only if *-he pistol' is carried or the licensee's P-e!'son' fhe '
    lfcinsee remains ih the vehicle at all times the pis-tol is there'
    "",
    ii the licensee ls not present, the pistol is locked within
    the vehicle and hidden from view.
    Leqislative Report, at 5l-52.
    bill reports are
    Edmonds Y. PERC'
    Legi sl ati ve
    See Port of
    a-icocae'pinta.bZled sources of -lgSi-slative history'
    331 , 336, 6s2- P.2d Bl4 (1985)'
    Tilis clea- fromTh'ia piece of legislative history that one of the reasons
    'l'l lt: z\'l-l'()ltNl:\' CliNl:lL'\l-
    Honorable Kent Pul len
    Harch 13, 1987
    Page 3
    for amending RCl.l 9.41.050 was to make it possible for a loaded pistol
    to be carried other than on one's person when that person is in an
    automobi I e.
    In summary, the plain language of the statute, internal consistency and
    legislative intent al I requfre an affirmative answer to your question.
    RCI 9.41.050 permits a person who possesses a valid concealed weapon permit,
    a.nd who is within a vehicle,.to legally possess a loaded pistol within
    the vehicle which is not on his or her person.
    ilopefully, the foregoing has been of assistance to you. t Very_.tr9lyloursr- Jf
    [#;:^(i Sr. Assistant Attorney General
    MH: lcs
    cc: Christine 0. Gregoire, Deputy Attorney General
    Chip Holcomb, Assistant Attorney General - l'lSP

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    G27 wrote:
    This law, like every other concerning gun rights (or anything for that matter), is extremely ambiguous. What about the man who carries his gun in his briefcase or the woman who carries in her purse? If s/he lays his/her briefcase/purse beside them in the empty seat on the bus is s/he technically breaking the law? I don't think so. Also, I'd not recommend just 'laying' your pistol in your seat for two reasons. Every have to slam on your break and watch your pistol fly around your truck cabin? I have. Not fun. Secondly, what if someone who was in a higher up car looked down and saw a pistol just chilling in the passenger seat? 9/10 they're gonna call 911 for a potential road rage person about to crack. I'd figure out a more secure way to have your pistol readily accessible. There are plenty of options out there, some of them even have banner ads on this forum.
    I don't think it is ambiguous at all. There is no "and" between i) and ii) and there is an "or" between ii) and iii). Clearly this is an "or" list by common and accepted English usage. Each item in the list then becomes a part of the list of "or" things that can happen.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    G27 wrote:
    This law, like every other concerning gun rights (or anything for that matter), is extremely ambiguous. What about the man who carries his gun in his briefcase or the woman who carries in her purse? If s/he lays his/her briefcase/purse beside them in the empty seat on the bus is s/he technically breaking the law? I don't think so. Also, I'd not recommend just 'laying' your pistol in your seat for two reasons. Every have to slam on your break and watch your pistol fly around your truck cabin? I have. Not fun. Secondly, what if someone who was in a higher up car looked down and saw a pistol just chilling in the passenger seat? 9/10 they're gonna call 911 for a potential road rage person about to crack. I'd figure out a more secure way to have your pistol readily accessible. There are plenty of options out there, some of them even have banner ads on this forum.
    I don't think it is ambiguous at all. There is no "and" between i) and ii) and there is an "or" between ii) and iii). Clearly this is an "or" list by common and accepted English usage. Each item in the list then becomes a part of the list of "or" things that can happen.
    Exactly!

    And that's what the Attorney Generals letter above says as well.


    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Lammo interpreted it wrong. Because there is a comma between i and ii and an "and" between ii and iii it is a list. You have an "and" between the statute and the qualifiers to indicate you have a base law that states you can do something provided you meet at least one of the following three qualifiers.

    ie: You can do this if you have A and you do at least one of the following: 1,2 or 3.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    Lammo interpreted it wrong. Because there is a comma between i and ii and an "OR" between ii and iii it is a list. You have an "and" between the statute and the qualifiers to indicate you have a base law that states you can do something provided you meet at least one of the following three qualifiers.

    ie: You can do this if you have A and you do at least one of the following: 1,2 or 3.
    Fixed it for ya.

    Also, the older verson of the RCW, that the case Lammo cited refered to was probably this:

    [Old] RCW 9.41.050 states that:

    "No person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle unless it is unloaded or carry a pistol concealed on his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor as hereinafter provided."
    [Quoted from AGLO 1973 No. 59]


    This is consistent with the BACKGROUND section in the AG's letter when summarizes the law before and after HB 600
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    Lammo interpreted it wrong. Because there is a comma between i and ii and an "and" between ii and iii it is a list. You have an "and" between the statute and the qualifiers to indicate you have a base law that states you can do something provided you meet at least one of the following three qualifiers.

    ie: You can do this if you have A and you do at least one of the following: 1,2 or 3.
    Sorry but I have to disagree (of course, that's what I get paid to do). If this is an "or" list then (i) is meaningless, unnecessaryand redundant to (ii). Don't get me wrong - - I would prefer to have it the way you guys see it. I'm just saying (here and on the other thread) that the history indicates that a loaded pistol must be on the person.

    While helpful to understand a statute, an AGO is not the law.My goal is to try to provide input, based on 22+ years as a prosecutor,that will keep the most people out of the most trouble. The Court of Final Error has not ruled on the current version of the statute and I would not hold my breath that the current court would rule in "our" favor. Unless and until they do my advice, FWIW, is to keep your loaded pistol (which, for the purposes of RCW 9.41 includes revolvers) on your person if you are in a vehicle. Of course, I could be wrong. It's happened before and it will happen again. If I change my mind I will update and edit my posts.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    WPIC 133.05.01 Carrying or Placing a Loaded Pistol In a Vehicle—Elements

    To convict the defendant of the crime of carrying or placing a loaded pistol in a vehicle, each of the following four elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
    (1) That on or about __________, the defendant [knowingly] carried or placed a pistol in a vehicle;
    (2) That the pistol was loaded;
    (3) That
    (a) the defendant did not have a license to carry a concealed pistol, or
    (b) at the time the pistol was in the vehicle, the defendant was away from the vehicle and did not lock the pistol within the vehicle, concealed from view from outside the vehicle;
    and
    (4) That this act occurred in the [State of Washington][City of ][County of ].
    If you find from the evidence that elements (1), (2), and (4), and either of the alternative elements (3)(a) or (3)(b), have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. To return a verdict of guilty, the jury need not be unanimous as to which of alternatives (3)(a) or (3)(b) has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror finds that at least one alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of elements (1), (2), (3), or (4), then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    WPIC 133.05.01 Carrying or Placing a Loaded Pistol In a Vehicle—Elements

    To convict the defendant of the crime of carrying or placing a loaded pistol in a vehicle, each of the following four elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
    (1) That on or about __________, the defendant [knowingly] carried or placed a pistol in a vehicle;
    (2) That the pistol was loaded;
    (3) That
    (a) the defendant did not have a license to carry a concealed pistol, or
    (b) at the time the pistol was in the vehicle, the defendant was away from the vehicle and did not lock the pistol within the vehicle, concealed from view from outside the vehicle;
    and
    (4) That this act occurred in the [State of Washington][City of][County of].
    If you find from the evidence that elements (1), (2), and (4), and either of the alternative elements (3)(a) or (3)(b), have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. To return a verdict of guilty, the jury need not be unanimous as to which of alternatives (3)(a) or (3)(b) has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror finds that at least one alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of elements (1), (2), (3), or (4), then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
    Saw that. All I can say is that the WPIC, Washington Pattern Instructions - Criminal are also not the law but a committee's interpretation of it. We have cases in recent years where the Court of Final Error held that the WPIC did not accurately state the law and where convictions were reversed even though the defendant requested and obtained the WPIC.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Lammo,

    i fail to understand why you're being so adamant about the illegality of carry loaded in a vehicle, off your person with a valid CPL. it's legal. period. one need not be a legal scholar to figure it out. one need only have a grasp of the English language.

    any judge that disagrees with that and would uphold a conviction is legislating from the bench and should be removed immediately. is there really that much doubt in your mind that even with the WPIC and the letter from Eikenberry's office that someone wouldn't be exonerated on this charge?

    edit to add: if you were a prosecutor and a case like this was presented to you, would you charge the person? more importantly, HAVE you charged someone for this?

    Bobby

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    Sorry but I have to disagree (of course, that's what I get paid to do). If this is an "or" list then (i) is meaningless, unnecessaryand redundant to (ii). Don't get me wrong - - I would prefer to have it the way you guys see it. I'm just saying (here and on the other thread) that the history indicates that a loaded pistol must be on the person.
    But by your argument ii) is redundant. If you are carrying a loaded pistol you have to be there. Can't carry it if you aren't there. They could then have left ii) completely off and it would have had the same meaning that you have presented. Either way one could argue that either i) or ii) is redundant. Since it says you are allowed to place a loaded pistol in your car, I think the "reasonable person" standard would suggest that taking the loaded pistol off the belt and setting it on the seat or in the glovebox would be allowable, so long as you have that license.

    Either way, it would be nice if we could get rid of the stupid CPL for a car requirement. Probably won't happen until we change the legislature though.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    I think someone should ask the Supreme court judge at the meet thats being arranged. Sounds like a good source of info. Im curious as well. My plan was to rivet a holster to my inner door panel and keep it there while I was driving. My seats just wouldnt be comfortable keeping it on me in the vehicle.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    Lammo,

    i fail to understand why you're being so adamant about the illegality of carry loaded in a vehicle, off your person with a valid CPL. it's legal. period. one need not be a legal scholar to figure it out. one need only have a grasp of the English language.

    any judge that disagrees with that and would uphold a conviction is legislating from the bench and should be removed immediately. is there really that much doubt in your mind that even with the WPIC and the letter from Eikenberry's office that someone wouldn't be exonerated on this charge?

    edit to add: if you were a prosecutor and a case like this was presented to you, would you charge the person? more importantly, HAVE you charged someone for this?

    Bobby
    You misunderstand me. I think it should be legal. My point is that there is no binding authority for the proposition that itIS and that there is prior authority for the proposition that it IS NOT. I believe it is unclear and thus want you all to err on the side of caution. An AG letter is not even as helpful as an AG Opinion and neither one is the law. The pattern jury instructions are also not the law. The law is decided by the legislature as interpreted by the courts, not by the AG and not by the jury instructions committee. I just want people to be careful and not end up having to be a test case. And, to answer your last questions: No, I would not charge someone for this and I have not done so. The trouble is, with misdemeanors the charging is generally done by LEOs out on the street.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    So, as was mentioned before, what should a female do who carries a firearm in her purse? I guess she has todrive withthe purse over her shoulder? In my situation, I have a firearm in a holster on my belt, and another in a holster between the seats of my truck; does the fact that the seat holster is touching my leg qualify as being "on my person"? Maybe, next time I'm stopped, I should pull the holster from between the seats and stick it in my belt? It just doesn't make sense!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    The statute itself is binding authority, and it sounds like the contrary "authority" pertains to an earlier version of the statute, so it has no bearing on the current one.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Maybe we need to ask a rep. or senator to ask for a new AGO.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    The late Sen. Pullen put together that language and the legislative intent was to allow loaded guns in vehicles OFF person provided the individual had a valid CPL.

    Nothing ambiguous about it.

    (A quick check with a pal over at SPD confirms. If you have a valid CPL, and there are no extenuating circumstances i.e. that $50,000 bench warrant you forgot about for six different FTA violations on those 22 speeding tickets you got....
    You're good to go. )

  25. #25
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    The late Sen. Pullen put together that language and the legislative intent was to allow loaded guns in vehicles OFF person provided the individual had a valid CPL.

    Nothing ambiguous about it.

    (A quick check with a pal over at SPD confirms. If you have a valid CPL, and there are no extenuating circumstances i.e. that $50,000 bench warrant you forgot about for six different FTA violations on those 22 speeding tickets you got....
    You're good to go. )
    Yea, I would have to say, the somewhat "questionable" wording of this RCW, combined by the shear number of people that practice "off-person" carry on a regular basis, you would THINK that there would be SOMEcase law specific to this question in support of Lammo's argument.

    The fact that there is none, is extremely telling of the legislative intent and how it is understood by LEAs whoare decidingif thisis a chargeable offense in the first place.

    I think I will take my chances on this one, the same way I have been for the last13+ years.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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