Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: WA Fish and Wildlife proposal - ban all loaded vehicle carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61

    WA Fish and Wildlife proposal - ban all loaded vehicle carry

    Not sure if anyone has seen this and may know more about it.

    "14. Amends RCW 77.15.460 to make it a crime to possess a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle or to unlawfully use a loaded firearm from within a motor vehicle or from or on a nonhighway vehicle as defined in
    RCW 46.09.310".

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetin...t_leg_prop.pdf

    On the surface this would appear to outlaw any loaded carry in vehicles, ATV etc.

    There is a public meeting scheduled at 08:30
    FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
    August 5-6, 2011
    Natural Resources Building
    First Floor, Room 172
    1111 Washington St SE
    Olympia, Washington 98501

    I'd go down there but I'm heading east for the weekend.

  2. #2
    Regular Member cbpeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, USA
    Posts
    407
    It sounds like it, but does WDFW have the authority to modify gun statutes? Where does preemption become relevant?

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by cbpeck View Post
    It sounds like it, but does WDFW have the authority to modify gun statutes? Where does preemption become relevant?
    State Preemption doesn't preempt State. As it is, we can't carry loaded rifles in vehicles because of WDFW regulations, not Firearm regulations under RCW 9.41

    If they prohibit loaded all loaded weapons that may well cover concealed pistols as well.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    State Preemption doesn't preempt State. As it is, we can't carry loaded rifles in vehicles because of WDFW regulations, not Firearm regulations under RCW 9.41

    If they prohibit loaded all loaded weapons that may well cover concealed pistols as well.

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    State Preemption doesn't preempt State. As it is, we can't carry loaded rifles in vehicles because of WDFW regulations, not Firearm regulations under RCW 9.41

    If they prohibit loaded all loaded weapons that may well cover concealed pistols as well.
    As I read this, it doesn't appear to be restricted to strictly non-highway vehicles. They are merely mentioned at the end of the section.

    As I see it, this proposed change will bring about a conflict in RCW's. RCW 9.41.050 essentially says you CAN carry a loaded Pistol if you have a CPL.

    This could get interesting.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    I bet they are just adding "nonhighway motor vehicle" language. It's not in the current RCW. Also in the current RCW, firearm is defined as shotgun or rifle. Handguns are exempt.

    I would like see the proposed language. A simple phone call to WDFW would probably clear up any concerns. I don't have time right now or I would.

    Separately, I have a problem with state enforcement agencies seeking/lobbying for more laws to enforce. Requests for new laws should come from the people, not from the state.
    Last edited by deanf; 08-04-2011 at 04:24 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    As I read this, it doesn't appear to be restricted to strictly non-highway vehicles. They are merely mentioned at the end of the section.

    As I see it, this proposed change will bring about a conflict in RCW's. RCW 9.41.050 essentially says you CAN carry a loaded Pistol if you have a CPL.

    This could get interesting.
    Yes, but for years they had conflicts when they said you could not be in possecion of a loaded firearm while archery hunting. (Also Muzzleloader.)

    This has been changed and not without alot of infighting either.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    State Preemption doesn't preempt State. ...
    How is your preemption law worded?

    In NV, it says to the effect that the Legislature reserves to itself the ability to make firearms laws. So even a state agency can't make laws unless they get the Legislature to vote it in.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    How is your preemption law worded?

    In NV, it says to the effect that the Legislature reserves to itself the ability to make firearms laws. So even a state agency can't make laws unless they get the Legislature to vote it in.

    Ours only specifies state, not legislature.

    Quote Originally Posted by RCW 9.41.290
    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state... ...

  10. #10
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by bikemutt View Post
    Not sure if anyone has seen this and may know more about it.

    "14. Amends RCW 77.15.460 to make it a crime to possess a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle or to unlawfully use a loaded firearm from within a motor vehicle or from or on a nonhighway vehicle as defined in
    RCW 46.09.310".

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetin...t_leg_prop.pdf

    On the surface this would appear to outlaw any loaded carry in vehicles, ATV etc.

    There is a public meeting scheduled at 08:30
    FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
    August 5-6, 2011
    Natural Resources Building
    First Floor, Room 172
    1111 Washington St SE
    Olympia, Washington 98501

    I'd go down there but I'm heading east for the weekend.
    http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetin...a_aug0611.html

    The above link is the agenda of the meeting over Friday and Saturday. There are a number of moments for "public" input but with the exception of the 8:30AM opening of the agenda on both Friday and Saturday, the rest are closed except to the topic under discussion at that point in the meeting.

    I agree with the potential conflict with 9.41 and it should be brought to their attention. I will plan on attending either tomorrow AM or Saturday. Tomorrow I will call the AG office and request some guidance from an assistant AG who has helped me in the past. I hope to get some type of correspondence in time to give weight to any public input I will give. Anyone that is interested or available to go please pm me.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  11. #11
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    [QUOTE=bikemutt;1586665]Not sure if anyone has seen this and may know more about it.

    "14. Amends RCW 77.15.460 to make it a crime to possess a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle or to unlawfully use a loaded firearm from within a motor vehicle or from or on a nonhighway vehicle as defined in
    RCW 46.09.310".

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetin...t_leg_prop.pdf

    On the surface this would appear to outlaw any loaded carry in vehicles, ATV etc.

    QUOTE]

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that this issue can be clarified or fixed by adding a reference to 9.41.050 to the "exceptions" listed in the revisions by fish and feathers. I would also note that this is proposed 2012 Agency legislation under the "Enforcement Omnibus" requested to the Gov's office.....so, even if it does not get addressed, we would have another kick or two at it in the legislative session.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
    Last edited by jt59; 08-04-2011 at 07:43 PM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Tomorrow I will call the AG office and request some guidance from an assistant AG who has helped me in the past. I hope to get some type of correspondence in time to give weight to any public input I will give. Anyone that is interested or available to go please pm me.
    I think the first call should be to WDFW to find out their intent. That .pdf document does a poor job of explaining the issue. I will call tomorrow.

    I bet we will find out it's nothing more than a housekeeping correction of the RCW language, to ensure that a fish cop can write someone for a loaded rifle or shotgun on an ATV as well as a highway legal vehicle.

    If we were to ask WDFW staff about the issue and find out the facts, we wouldn't go off half-cocked at the WDFW Commission meeting. Probably wouldn't even need to attend.

    I will call and ask them what the exact proposed new language is, and what their intent is.

  13. #13
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I think the first call should be to WDFW to find out their intent. That .pdf document does a poor job of explaining the issue. I will call tomorrow.

    I bet we will find out it's nothing more than a housekeeping correction of the RCW language, to ensure that a fish cop can write someone for a loaded rifle or shotgun on an ATV as well as a highway legal vehicle.

    If we were to ask WDFW staff about the issue and find out the facts, we wouldn't go off half-cocked at the WDFW Commission meeting. Probably wouldn't even need to attend.

    I will call and ask them what the exact proposed new language is, and what their intent is.
    I had the same idea after reading through a bit more and, after navigating through a very tedious phone tree, was able to speak with Mike Censi the Deputy Chief for Fish and Game who worked on some of this language. He indicated that the intent of the language change was to pick up ATV's. He indicated that his officers are instructed and know that both open carry and concealed carry in a vehicle with CPL are legal and they do not try to make it an enforcement issue in the field. We had a good chat for about 45 minutes, he appears to be an advocate. He said he would bring the consideration of 9.41.050 as one of the exceptions to the rule to the discussion, but didn't really see it as an issue to the intent. In context, the language is talking about long guns, and he affirmed that.

    My gun does not have a half cock position, it is too unreliable.

    This appears to be a non-issue for us....
    Last edited by jt59; 08-04-2011 at 08:42 PM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Thanks for calling I will stand down.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    I don't see this a non-issue if they are trying to do for lawful ATV carry what they did for snowmobile carry, which is no-carry.

    There needs to be some clear distinction between hunting and just driving down the highway, what on earth F&W has to do with the latter escapes me.

    Back to hunting, when I'm hunting for grouse I don't ride around with a loaded shotgun on my 4wheeler, I do like to keep a loaded pistol next to my carry permit, just in case, and that's not for hunting.

    I think this is a very serious issue, F&W needs to get shut down on this one.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Back to hunting, when I'm hunting for grouse I don't ride around with a loaded shotgun on my 4wheeler, I do like to keep a loaded pistol next to my carry permit, just in case, and that's not for hunting.
    And under the current language, and the proposed change, that would be legal. It only applies to long guns. Just as now, only adding ATVs. Have you read the RCW?

    So you want to be able to carry a loaded long gun on your ATV? That's fine with me, I just want to be sure I understand your position.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    And under the current language, and the proposed change, that would be legal. It only applies to long guns. Just as now, only adding ATVs. Have you read the RCW?

    So you want to be able to carry a loaded long gun on your ATV? That's fine with me, I just want to be sure I understand your position.
    Have you read the proposal? It says firearms, not long guns.

    And no, I do not wish to 4wheel with a loaded long gun: with respect hunting I believe that's not ethical or necessary, concerning safety, it's not.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Have you read the proposal? It says firearms, not long guns.
    You do know that someone called to clarify, right? Or are you calling Mr. Censi a liar?

    Mistrust of government and all - yeah I'm on board, but seriously?

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by bikemutt View Post
    Have you read the proposal? It says firearms, not long guns.

    And no, I do not wish to 4wheel with a loaded long gun: with respect hunting I believe that's not ethical or necessary, concerning safety, it's not.
    It proposes to amend RCW 77.15.460 to:

    make it a crime to possess a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle or to unlawfully use a loaded firearm from within a motor vehicle or from or on a nonhighway vehicle as defined in RCW 46.09.310
    If they only make that amendment, we're good, because 77.15.460 currently defines firearm as
    a rifle or shotgun
    Last edited by ak56; 08-05-2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason: Corrected 2nd reference to 77.15.460, I had typed it wrong.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    It proposes to amend RCW 77.15.460 to:



    If they only make that amendment, we're good, because 77.55.460 currently defines firearm as
    That all sounds reasonable, thanks for the clarification.

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    It proposes to amend RCW 77.15.460 to:



    If they only make that amendment, we're good, because 77.55.460 currently defines firearm as
    I see this as the "nose of the camel". If there isn't a specific exclusion for Pistols carried with a CPL expect problems. Not "If", just "When".

    Why not just spell it out in plain language? Could it be that they want some "weasel room"?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Read 9.41. Pistols ARE firearms.

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Read 9.41. Pistols ARE firearms.
    My point exactly. If All Firearms are barred by WDFW "rules" that will include pistols. I seriously doubt that some "Parker Williams" (the dufus cop in the TV series "In the Heat of the Night") will be listening to any argument that "WDFW only meant Rifles and Shotguns" when you are stopped.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  24. #24
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I see this as the "nose of the camel". If there isn't a specific exclusion for Pistols carried with a CPL expect problems. Not "If", just "When".

    Why not just spell it out in plain language? Could it be that they want some "weasel room"?
    I don't disagree at all, and suggested exactly that the fix would be to include a reference to 9.41.050 in the "exemptions" portions of the proposed change, right after the notation about exempting police and retired police officers and he said he would review it.

    Keep in mind that this is also proposed 2012 legislative changes, so we'll be able to address it with amendment and at public hearing in the upcoming legislative sessions too.....but as with this, it will require folks (and more than one) to show up to testify.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    My point exactly. If All Firearms are barred by WDFW "rules" that will include pistols. I seriously doubt that some "Parker Williams" (the dufus cop in the TV series "In the Heat of the Night") will be listening to any argument that "WDFW only meant Rifles and Shotguns" when you are stopped.
    We're not talking about rules. Notice that it's an RCW that is being discussed. Criminal law. Must be passed by both houses and signed by the governor. Not an agency rule . . .

    "WDFW only meant Rifles and Shotguns" - invalid argument. It's not WDFW; it's the intent of the Legislature. The rifles and shotguns proviso is written into current law and no one is talking about changing it.

    Wasted energy worrying about non-existent issues.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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