got pulled over today for OCing

Appears that Everett PD bulletin is in error regarding suppressors aka silencer. Citizens may own and possess them, they just can't "use" them. Sorry for the hijack, carry on.

Very suspicious this is......

not suspicious

Poosharker said:

Very suspicious this is......

Click to expand...

its just criminal....

Matt85 said:

around 430pm today i stopped at a gas station to fuel up on my way to my parents and on my way out of the parking lot two police cars pull up with their lights on. it went down pretty much like this:

officer: sir, do you have a firearm?
me: yes i am open carrying a sidearm.
officer: do you have a CPL?
me: yes, but i dont need one.
officer: can i see your ID?
me: why, have i done something wrong?
officer: i am just making sure you can legally have that pistol.
(i hand him my ID and he goes back to his car for about 5 minutes)
officer: you really shouldnt open carry, it scares people.
me: its my legal right to open carry and you aren't supposed to be pulling me over for it.
officer: you would want me to check out strange people carrying guns in your neighborhood, right?
me: nope, as long as they aren't doing any thing illegal they should be left alone.
officer: ....allright, have a nice day sir.

while nothing bad happened the overall experiance was unejoyable and a waste of time, since my folks were making dinner for me and i was running late. i will see what i can do to get in touch with the police chief and talk with him about this.


-matt

Click to expand...

You didn’t mention if you were loaded while in your vehicle, but if you were you would be required to have your CPL in your possession. Telling the officer you were OC and didn’t require is false because you were in a motor vehicle loaded. I think I read that correct.
RCW 9.41.050
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

legalize!!

you dont need a CPL to open carry or to carry in the car if its unloaded..
if stoped for just open carry,, you dont need a CPL.
you dont need ID
you just need to shut the fjck up.
open carry is not RAS of a crime.
there is no gun exception to the 4th amendment.
The cops cant just stop you to check if you are allowed to excerize your
constitutional rights.
your rights cant stand up for themselves, we each must do that for them.....

1245A Defender said: "...open carry is not RAS of a crime."

See Florida vs J.L. No citation yet, I'm looking.

MD

ETA: Citation

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993

OP stated, "i believe it was everett PD (i was in a hurry so im not 100%)"

I'm simply curious about the fact that the OP cannot identify which law enforcement agency pulled him over when one of its officers lectured him on this forum's fundamental issue.

SnoCo deputies, Everett PD or WSP all wear distinctly different uniforms.

I would like to think that members of this board are generally more observant. If one cannot postively ID a specific officer one has an encounter with, isn't it still one's duty to recognize which department's employees one is dealing with?

Mine says whom I work for on my badge and on my shoulder patch.

1245A Defender said:

you dont need a CPL to open carry or to carry in the car if its unloaded..
if stoped for just open carry,, you dont need a CPL.
you dont need ID
you just need to shut the fjck up.
open carry is not RAS of a crime.
there is no gun exception to the 4th amendment.
The cops cant just stop you to check if you are allowed to excerize your
constitutional rights.
your rights cant stand up for themselves, we each must do that for them.....

Click to expand...

Wait! I really want to know the answer to this. Did you see what I posted above, about the driving/license RCW? As it reads there, if you are "operating" a motor vehicle, you are required to show ID when asked of you. The OP can argue all day long with the cop about OC, etc, but wasn't he required to show ID when asked (because he was in a car)?

I think there is nothing one can do to avoid being harrassed in this situation. Refusing to provide ID will put you in violation of another crime. I would have liked to see it go down like this...

cop: May I see your ID?
OP: Am I being detained?
cop: Yes.
[narative] - traffic stops are detainments.
OP: For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?
cop: Possession of a loaded gun in a vehicle gives me the right to request your CPL.
OP: What is your RAS that my gun is loaded?
cop: All guns are assumed to be loaded.
OP: That's not good enough. You are now assuming that I am breaking the law?
cop: You must present ID when operating a vehicle when requested.
OP: We have already established that you are stopping me for a gun-carry issue, and not a vehicle/operational issue. I will give you my ID but I want your supervisor present. I want to explain that you are detaining me for a gun-carrying issue and not a vehicular issue, and are therefore violating my 4th amendment rights.

I think that, with the exchange above, the OP has shown that the traffic stop was not for a traffic issue, and was therefore an illegal detainment. That might be the best series of events, but please critique me. Of course, the cop could also request that the OP step out of the vehicle while waiting for the supervisor, and then seize the OP's gun claiming officer safety. Right??

In WA state if you are driving a car then you are required to show your ID to any law officer who asks for it... there is wording in the paperwork when you get your drivers license.

The state can suspend your license for up to a year if you fail to present ID when asked, if operating a motor vehicle on proper roads.

That, in addition to the need for a CPL in your car... if you are carrying and it is loaded. To avoid the CPL issue you need to have your gun stowed and unloaded...

(SNIP)
However, the officer had no way to know if the OCer was carrying unloaded (Israeli style) and there is no mention of a check of the firearm.
(SNIP)

If by Israeli style you mean a semi-auto with a loaded magazine inserted but an empty chamber, then "Israeli style" equals loaded according to the RCW, specifically, 9.41.010(10). I can't say it often enough - - to be unloaded in Washington, unless it is a muzzleloader it has to be EMPTY.

daddy4count said:

...That, in addition to the need for a CPL in your car... if you are carrying and it is loaded. To avoid the CPL issue you need to have your gun stowed and unloaded...

Click to expand...

That is correct ONLY if your definition of "stowed" is... in a holster, on the seat next to you, in a bag, on the floor, in the glove compartment, on the dash, or ANYWHERE ELSE in the car.

Yes, to legally carry in a car without a CPL, your gun must be unloaded. Empty chamber and empty magazine inserted, or empty chamber and loaded magazine NOT inserted in gun. Proximity does not matter.

Lammo said:

(SNIP)
However, the officer had no way to know if the OCer was carrying unloaded (Israeli style) and there is no mention of a check of the firearm.
(SNIP)

If by Israeli style you mean a semi-auto with a loaded magazine inserted but an empty chamber, then "Israeli style" equals loaded according to the RCW, specifically, 9.41.010(10). I can't say it often enough - - to be unloaded in Washington, unless it is a muzzleloader it has to be EMPTY.

Click to expand...

Correct, I didn't do a well enough job of completing my thought in the above post.

What I meant was if someone else saw the OP with the firearm and the OP was carrying he could of removed the magazine from the firearm while driving and fueling the car. There is no mention if the officer saw anything regarding the firearm.

1245A Defender said:

you dont need a CPL to open carry or to carry in the car if its unloaded..
if stoped for just open carry,, you dont need a CPL.
.....

Click to expand...

Of course not...
But the my question remains, was MATT85 loaded or unloaded in the vehicle, the story did not mention. If loaded the claim too not needing a CPL is false.

The stop was a pretext stop, illegal under state and federal constitution.

He conducted a traffic stop to conduct a speculative criminal investigation.

If the stop was illegal, any evidence obtained is illegal as well.

The request for ID can not be legal if the stop was illegal in the first place.

Fruit of the forbidden tree.

IANAL, and I'll guarantee they'll try the 'suspicious person - community caretaking' excuse.....

gogodawgs said:

Correct, I didn't do a well enough job of completing my thought in the above post.

What I meant was if someone else saw the OP with the firearm and the OP was carrying he could of removed the magazine from the firearm while driving and fueling the car. There is no mention if the officer saw anything regarding the firearm.

Click to expand...

True dat. I don't like the sound of this whole thing. Seems to me to be originated by a store clerk for whom guns are just plain scary monsters.

TechnoWeenie said:

...The request for ID can not be illegal if the stop was illegal in the first place.

Click to expand...

Huh? To put it another way: "If the stop was illegal, then the request for ID is legal".
I don't see how the request for ID is legal, based on the stop being illegal.

If "The request for ID can not be illegal if the stop was illegal...", then the request for ID cannot be illegal for any reason, right? Then, why didn't you just say "The request for ID can not be illegal"?

whether or not my firearm was loaded or i was carrying a CPL has nothing to do with the stop. at no point did the officer actually ask to see my CPL or even ask if the firearm was loaded. the onley mention of a CPL was whether i had one or not and i answered his question. i was not being stopped because of a firearm in a vehicle, i was being stopped for having a firearm on my hip when i went into the gas station. (some joker in the parking lot called the cops)

some of you guys are reading more into this then there really was.

as for why i am not master of all that is police officers and didnt recognize whether they were sheriffs or local police, I WAS IN A HURRY and did not care at the time.

-matt

Edited to Add: It occurs to me that you all have stiffer 4th Amendment protections in Washington.

You're right Citizen. In Washington v Day 2007 (No. 78187-7), the WA State Supreme Court mentions this in their analysis section of this case.

"The right to be free from searches by government agents is deeply
rooted into our nation’s history and law, and it is enshrined in our state and
national constitutions. The United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures; our state constitution goes further and requires actual
authority of law before the State may disturb the individual’s private affairs."

Matt85 said:

as for why i am not master of all that is police officers and didnt recognize whether they were sheriffs or local police, I WAS IN A HURRY and did not care at the time.

-matt

Click to expand...

Well, I'm just askin', 'cause you first said this:

around 430pm today i stopped at a gas station to fuel up on my way to my parents and on my way out of the parking lot two police cars pull up with their lights on.

Click to expand...

So, during daylight hours, by the time you gassed up and pulled out of the station, two cop cars lit you up? Pretty good response time, that.

And you recognized neither the vehicles by agency colors and markings, nor whether the cops were wearing dark blue, light blue or green uniforms, shields or stars?

If the story is important enough to post about, surely the department involved should be identified. I simply can't believe that a responsible member of the open carry community, and this forum, cannot ID his local law enforcement agency when it's a vital matter of the civil and legal rights that this board is all about ... because he's in a hurry to get to dinner.

No disrespect intended. That is all.