Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: AGO Definition on RCW 9.41.060

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    AGO Definition on RCW 9.41.060

    Download the PDF file here:http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...downfile&id=80

    August 17, 2011

    Bill Starks
    M1gunr@gmail.com
    RE: concealed / open carry RCW 9.41.060(8)

    Dear Mr. Starks:
    On behalf of the Department of Licensing, thank you for your email received August 6, 2011. I am responsible for firearm issues so your email was forwarded to me for response. In your request you asked for clarification regarding the definition of RCW 9.41.060(8) which is popularly known as the “hunting and fishing” exception to concealed carry requirements in Washington State. In your letter you ask if the exception in subsection 8 would apply if someone were to leave town to go hiking without a carry permit and carried concealed or had a loaded pistol in his or her vehicle.
    The statute allows law enforcement latitude to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. The scenario you portray could very well result in a finding of violation of the law. The case would turn on the credibility of the individual claiming the exception. The individual’s case would of course be stronger if he or she wore hiking gear and had hiking supplies, etc. The purpose of the law is to make personal protection available to outdoor enthusiasts, and not serve as an end run around the state’s regulation of firearms.
    The Attorney General’s Office serves as a legal counsel to state agencies and certain elected officials and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to private citizens. It is, however, our policy to provide members of the public with information of a general nature whenever possible.

    Sincerely,
    SUSAN L. PIERINI
    Assistant Attorney General
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 08-17-2011 at 01:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Talking

    Fixed.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 08-17-2011 at 01:59 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871
    Deleted as no longer necessary. Thanks!
    Last edited by j2l3; 08-17-2011 at 05:58 PM.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  4. #4
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    FYI - it looks like I have a "IN" to the AG's office for questions HOWEVER it's not something I can afford to abuse......
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 08-17-2011 at 08:04 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Since this is a "hunting and fishing" exemption, then someone who is wearing tank top, shorts, and flip flops, as well as a concealed firearm, could just say they're going clam digging or fishing. Right? Is there any designated "uniform" for these activities?
    "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
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Since this is a "hunting and fishing" exemption, then someone who is wearing tank top, shorts, and flip flops, as well as a concealed firearm, could just say they're going clam digging or fishing. Right? Is there any designated "uniform" for these activities?
    If one were to be pulled over and a concealed weapon without a permit was known, wouldn't that be RAS to have the driver pop the trunk? While the attire may not say "fishing," presumably their gear and required license would. I think that's what the email is intending on saying; even though you may or may not be dressed appropriately, as long as it is reasonably concluded that you're participating in said activities because you possess items that corroborates your story, you're therefore in compliance with state law.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    If one were to be pulled over and a concealed weapon without a permit was known, wouldn't that be RAS to have the driver pop the trunk? While the attire may not say "fishing," presumably their gear and required license would. I think that's what the email is intending on saying; even though you may or may not be dressed appropriately, as long as it is reasonably concluded that you're participating in said activities because you possess items that corroborates your story, you're therefore in compliance with state law.
    No, there is no RAS to pop the trunk. The LEO is not going to look for exculpatory evidence on evidence to convict. The driver may want to have the LEO open the trunk if it can confirm the outdoor activity.

    I suggest you carry hiking gear in your trunk at all times, boots, maps, water bottle, etc....
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    82
    Last time I went hiking, it was with a pair of running shoes, shorts, and a t-shirt. I don't really do the boot, khakis, backpack, thing.

Posting Permissions

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