Firing in self defense from your car, without a CPL

Aaron1124 · May 1, 2010

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?

Matt85 · May 1, 2010

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

sudden valley gunner · May 1, 2010

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 .

joeroket · May 1, 2010

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.

Aaron1124 · May 1, 2010

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.

.45ACPaddy · May 1, 2010

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.

Glock17 · May 3, 2010

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

.45ACPaddy · May 3, 2010

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.

Aaron1124 · May 3, 2010

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

Click to expand...

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?

Vandal · May 3, 2010

imported post

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

sudden valley gunner · May 3, 2010

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.

olypendrew · May 3, 2010

imported post

WPIC 18.02 Necessity—Defense

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.

BigDave · May 3, 2010

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.

joeroket · May 3, 2010

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?

sudden valley gunner · May 4, 2010

imported post

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

kparker · May 4, 2010

imported post

SVG, you are not mistaken.

joeroket · May 4, 2010

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.

olypendrew · May 4, 2010

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.

sudden valley gunner · May 4, 2010

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.

gogodawgs · May 4, 2010

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?

Firing in self defense from your car, without a CPL

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran