• 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.

Off-person carry in vehicle with CPL illegal

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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?
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 

GSXtasy

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
6
Location
, ,
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
 

5918mike

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
44
Location
, ,
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.
 

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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.
 

G27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
573
Location
Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
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.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

Rune

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top