Speaking of YANAL, it sure would be helpful if someone who actually WAL would chime in. Lammo? Olypendrew?
Refresh my memory, what is the penalty for having a loaded rifle in a vehicle?
This one's not in 9.41 with the rest of the gun laws. It's RCW 77.15.460. Violation is a misdemeanor, maximum penalty 90 days in jail and/or a $1000 fine.
The scenario described is technically a violation of this section. Subsection 5 states:
(5) For purposes of this section, a firearm shall not be considered loaded if the detachable clip or magazine is not inserted in or attached to the firearm.
Since it is not loaded if a magazine is not inserted in or attached to the firearm, if a magazine is inserted it is loaded. So, you ask, If it's disassembled, is it still a rifle? RCW 9.41.010(7) says:
(7) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. This is different from the Federal definition in 18 USC 921(3)(B) which indicates that the frame or receiver, the part where the magazine would go, by itself is a firearm.
So, you still wonder, is a disassembled rifle still a firearm? If I'm defending you I argue it isn't, pointing out the distinction in Federal law, and stressing that a projectile cannot be fired from a disassembled rifle. If I'm prosecuting you, I argue it is since a projectile may be fired as soon as the rifle is reassembled. In State v. Releford, 148 Wash.App. 478 (Div I, 2009), the court admitted that "may be fired" is ambiguous so it might go either way. But, the case also states that, for the purposes of unlawful possession of a firearm, "a disassembled firearm that can be rendered operational with reasonable effort and within a reasonable time period is a firearm . . . ", citing the Padilla case, 95 Wash.App. 531. Your prosecutor will hang his or her hat on this case. See also State v. Faust, 93 Wash.App. 373, which held that an inoperable gun was a firearm for the purposes of a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement.
Should you be charged for such a technical violation? Will you be convicted? I, I don't know people!!!!! (that's something one of my philosophy professors used to say) That's the problem with this kind of stuff. They teach us how to argue both sides but don't bother to teach us how to decide which one to choose. Personally, I would not proceed to trial on this technical violation of the law since the real purpose of the law appears to be to prevent people from conducting drive by shootings on the deer population. If I don't dismiss it outright, the most I would seek would be a 6 month continuance for dismissal (stay out of trouble for 6 months and the case goes away). My advice? Disassemble the rifle but keep the magazine duct taped to your forehead any time you are in a vehicle
PS - - the above ought to teach you not to ask a lawyer a question!