Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Firing in self defense from your car, without a CPL

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    If an individual does not have a Washington State CPL, they cannot legally carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

    My question is, are they permitted by law to load their pistol and use it in self defense if they're legitimately using it for self defense? Or will they still most likely be cited for having "a loaded handgun in their vehicle without a CPL", despite using it in self defense?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    my guess is you would probably have trouble in court since the second you loaded the pistol while in the vehicle you would be breaking the law.

    get a CPL, its cheap and easy.

    -matt

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I think that if you could prove you had enough time to insert magazine and rack a round, and that it truly was a case of self defense , youmight be ok .
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I think that if you could prove you had enough time to insert magazine and rack a round, and that it truly was a case of self defense , you¬*might be ok .
    There was a case, not sure if a CPL was involved, back about 15 years ago at Shotzees North where a guy was pulled out of a car while he was loading a firearm and shot twice before the attacker got him all the way out. It was ruled self defense and never got to a court. This incident also included a size disparity that the prosecutor took into account for his decision.

    I would imagine that if the shooting was justified then the loading of the firearm in a vehicle may be overlooked or possibly a citation written, after all it is only a misdemeanor charge and would not impact the ability for the person to obtain a firearm or CPL in the future.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Matt85 wrote:
    my guess is you would probably have trouble in court since the second you loaded the pistol while in the vehicle you would be breaking the law.

    get a CPL, its cheap and easy.

    -matt
    I have one. I was just asking for hypothetical reasons. I think someone on here a while ago had asked if they would still be cited for discharging a firearm in a public park, if they were to use it for self defense.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    If it's a self defense situation, there's bigger things to worry about than a minor citation. I'd keep the slide locked open if I didn't have a CPL, that way if I had to load it, all I'd have to do is put the mag in and drop the slide, rather than grabbing and racking the slide.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    I talked to a Lakewood Police Officer the other day via phone and he stated its ok to have a gun in your vehicle if its not within reach and its not loaded. How accurate is this information and would this affect the above situation at all? Obviously this is going to cause a time delay and possible contact with the perp. Cheers

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    Glock17 wrote:
    I talked to a Lakewood Police Officer the other day via phone and he stated its ok to have a gun in your vehicle if its not within reach and its not loaded. How accurate is this information and would this affect the above situation at all? Obviously this is going to cause a time delay and possible contact with the perp. Cheers
    He's wrong about it being out of reach. Cites to come later, as I'm in class.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    Glock17 wrote:
    I talked to a Lakewood Police Officer the other day via phone and he stated its ok to have a gun in your vehicle if its not within reach and its not loaded. How accurate is this information and would this affect the above situation at all? Obviously this is going to cause a time delay and possible contact with the perp. Cheers
    He's wrong about it being out of reach. Cites to come later, as I'm in class.
    Yeah, I've never read any state law regarding it being within your reach. Besides, what is considered "within reach", anyway? Within an arms distance from you?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    You're in a car, drive away in a rapid manner.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Glock17 wrote:
    I talked to a Lakewood Police Officer the other day via phone and he stated its ok to have a gun in your vehicle if its not within reach and its not loaded. How accurate is this information and would this affect the above situation at all? Obviously this is going to cause a time delay and possible contact with the perp. Cheers
    Much misinformation begin with "I was talking to .......Police officer (LEO, CC[only]guy, mayor, politician, county worker, federal agent, gunstore owner/employee.....etc)."

    It just has to be unloaded: nothing in the chamber, no loaded magazine inserted in any form or matter. Otherwise like some have said you can duct tape it to your forehead if you want.

    If you have a CPL none of that matters. Just be safe.


    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    WPIC 18.02 Necessity‚ÄĒDefense

    Necessity is a defense to a charge of __________ if
    (1) the defendant reasonably believed the commission of the crime was necessary to avoid or minimize a harm; and
    (2) the harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm resulting from a violation of the law; and
    (3) the threatened harm was not brought about by the defendant; and
    (4) no reasonable legal alternative existed.
    The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that it is more probably true than not true. If you find that the defendant has established this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge].


    Assuming any prosecutor would even charge under these facts, which I highly doubt.

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Finally we have a Winner :celebrate

    Note on the use of this law one cannot carry where it is illegal to do so just encase something was to happen, although one could enter into a bar armed if they have knowledge of immediate threat to life or limb.


    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    BigDave wrote:
    Finally we have a Winner :celebrate

    Note on the use of this law one cannot carry where it is illegal to do so just encase something was to happen, although one could enter into a bar armed if they have knowledge of immediate threat to life or limb.

    Have knowledge of or are witnessing immediate threat to life or limb?
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I could be mistaken but this is not law but jury instructions.
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    SVG, you are not mistaken.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I could be mistaken but this is not law but jury instructions.
    It is something prosecutors take into account when deciding if to charge or what to charge for though. I think that is what Drew was going for when he posted it.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    If someone was charged per the hypothetical, that person could raise a necessity defense, where one would admit that they broke the law, but claim justification for doing so, because their actions were necessary to avoid a greater harm.

    If there was at least some evidence to support that theory, the jury should be given the instruction cited above. That instruction, in essence, is a summarization of the law.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    If someone was charged per the hypothetical, that person could raise a necessity defense, where one would admit that they broke the law, but claim justification for doing so, because their actions were necessary to avoid a greater harm.

    If there was at least some evidence to support that theory, the jury should be given the instruction cited above. That instruction, in essence, is a summarization of the law.
    Thanks.
    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)

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    If someone was charged per the hypothetical, that person could raise a necessity defense, where one would admit that they broke the law, but claim justification for doing so, because their actions were necessary to avoid a greater harm.

    If there was at least some evidence to support that theory, the jury should be given the instruction cited above. That instruction, in essence, is a summarization of the law.
    My question would be then. The jury can by their own accord ignore any instructions that they so choose. Although this practice is not done very often anymore. What is the consequence in hypothetical if the jury chooses to ignore instructions?
    Live Free or Die!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    olypendrew wrote:
    If someone was charged per the hypothetical, that person could raise a necessity defense, where one would admit that they broke the law, but claim justification for doing so, because their actions were necessary to avoid a greater harm.

    If there was at least some evidence to support that theory, the jury should be given the instruction cited above. That instruction, in essence, is a summarization of the law.
    My question would be then.¬* The jury can by their own accord ignore any instructions that they so choose.¬* Although this practice is not done very often anymore.¬* What is the consequence in hypothetical if the jury chooses to ignore instructions?
    There's really no good way of knowing how the jury reached its decision. In other words, there would be no way of knowing if they ignored the instruction or did not believe the defendant's version of events. If, and that's a big if, a case like this actually went t trial it would be because the prosecutor, at least, did not believe that the gun was loaded just prior to the assault, and instead believed that the gun was already loaded.

    One could ask the judge to throw out the jury's verdict, if it was one that no reasonable jury that followed the instructions would reach. But if there were facts presented at trial that makes the issue iffy, one way or the other, the judge should let the verdict stand.

Posting Permissions

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