Off-person carry in vehicle with CPL illegal

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!

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.

imported post

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

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....:lol:
You're good to go. )

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....:lol:
You're good to go. )

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

I love it when someone tries to pick the fly $h!t out of the pepper.

I have had many pleasant encounters with Law Officers over the years where my pistol (loaded) has been in my vehicle and not on my person. They could have cared less as they knew I had a CPL. The law as currently written is pretty plain. It's only when everyone starts arguing over commas and conjunctions that it becomes "cloudy".

Isn't there something more pressing to discuss?

imported post

amlevin wrote:

I love it when someone tries to pick the fly $h!t out of the pepper.

I have had many pleasant encounters with Law Officers over the years where my pistol (loaded) has been in my vehicle and not on my person.  They could have cared less as they knew I had a CPL.  The law as currently written is pretty plain.  It's only when everyone starts arguing over commas and conjunctions that it becomes "cloudy".

Isn't there something more pressing to discuss?

Click to expand...

Amen, bro!

imported post

amlevin wrote:

I love it when someone tries to pick the fly $h!t out of the pepper.

I have had many pleasant encounters with Law Officers over the years where my pistol (loaded) has been in my vehicle and not on my person. They could have cared less as they knew I had a CPL. The law as currently written is pretty plain. It's only when everyone starts arguing over commas and conjunctions that it becomes "cloudy".

Isn't there something more pressing to discuss?

Click to expand...

Well excuse the bleep out of me for trying to answer an honest question. Have a day.

imported post

Well excuse the bleep out of me for trying to answer an honest question. Have a day.

Click to expand...

We have many self-proclaimed experts here. When a bona fide expert comes along, we tend to run them and their ideas off. It's too bad.

imported post

Lammo wrote:

amlevin wrote:

I love it when someone tries to pick the fly $h!t out of the pepper.

I have had many pleasant encounters with Law Officers over the years where my pistol (loaded) has been in my vehicle and not on my person. They could have cared less as they knew I had a CPL. The law as currently written is pretty plain. It's only when everyone starts arguing over commas and conjunctions that it becomes "cloudy".

Isn't there something more pressing to discuss?

Click to expand...

Well excuse the bleep out of me for trying to answer an honest question. Have a day.

Click to expand...

Hey brother, I honestly appreciate your point of view and the discussion and exchanges it creates. I simply disagree with you on this one.

Your welcome to "pick the fly $h!t" out of my arguments anytime tho.

imported post

easy Lammo. don't take it so personally. you're kind of spitting into the wind here. you have a memo from the AG's office as well as the WPIC in front of you and you're still defending an indefensible position.

i understand you're only trying to save some gun owners some heartache but the law is on our side with this one. we'll be alright

imported post

it always seems to boil down to legislative intent,, and nobody has cited an actual case law about it.
it says carry or place a gun in a car...
it says its gotta be on you or you gotta be there with it...
nobody has been able to convince me that the words mean other than the obvious.
if i was wrong, there would be tons of case law by now!

imported post

if i was wrong, there would be tons of case law by now!

Click to expand...

Well there ya' go. Case closed.

imported post

Please bury this nonsense post 6ft under and forget about it.

imported post

Bobarino wrote:

easy Lammo. don't take it so personally. you're kind of spitting into the wind here. you have a memo from the AG's office as well as the WPIC in front of you and you're still defending an indefensible position.

i understand you're only trying to save some gun owners some heartache but the law is on our side with this one. we'll be alright

Click to expand...

You still miss my point. These things aren't "the law". First, I know from my experience that the WPIC can be wrong. What else should you expect from a committee of lawyers? Second, this "memo" was not a formal AG Opinion but not even an AG Opinion is binding authority. Don't believe me? Here it is from the horse: "The Washington Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties. While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts." (emphasis added) http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/default.aspx

So, since this prosecutor can read it differently from you it is entirely likely that another prosecutor (who doesn't have WA and UT carry permits and who isn't an NRA Life Member and who thinks Sarah Brady and Michael Bloomberg have a bunch of great ideas) can and will read it differently from you. Combine this not completely hypothetical prosecutor (I work with several) with an LEO that doesn't think us "civilians" should have the right to arms (and you can't tell me they don't exist) and you have a recipe for trouble.

imported post

we seem to agree that a loaded gun can be concealed and locked in the car when you are away from the vehicle.
just what becomes of this lawful activity when you remove it from the holster and hide it under the seat,, but you havent gotten out of the car yet?
are you breaking the law for a second, a minute, 5, 10?

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

we seem to agree that a loaded gun can be concealed and locked in the car when you are away from the vehicle.
just what becomes of this lawful activity when you remove it from the holster and hide it under the seat,, but you havent gotten out of the car yet?
are you breaking the law for a second, a minute, 5, 10?

Click to expand...

That question is what this whole thread is about. RCW 9.41.050 (2) says: Have a CPL and (i), (ii) or (iii). Some of us read that "," between (i) and (ii) as OR and some of us read it as AND. I, unfortunately, started this whole thing by pointing out on another thread that the only case I could find on the subject interprets a prior version of the law and leads me to believe that it reads AND. I want it to read OR but I know that there are LEOs and prosecutors out there who can and will read it as AND and who are hostile to RKBA. You'd think I was questioning the Catholicity of the Pope (which, as a 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus, I would never do). Anyway, this is far from nonsense but I'm done.

imported post

Lammo wrote:

Anyway, this is far from nonsense but I'm done.

Click to expand...

I think it was an interesting discussion of a possible flaw in the law and how it might be interpreted, even though I disagree on the interpretation. I think that people who act like they are paying by the word for other people's threads need to get a life and just not read the thread.

imported post

That question is what this whole thread is about. RCW 9.41.050 (2) says: Have a CPL and (i), (ii) or (iii). Some of us read that "," between (i) and (ii) as OR and some of us read it as AND.

Click to expand...

There isn't a court in the state that would read it that way: you're talking about inserting an implicit AND in a series where the only explicit conjuction is OR?

imported post

And if there were any ambiguity in the statute, it would have to be construed against the government, and in favor of any potential defendant who was charged with having a loaded handgun, off-body, in a car.