update on legislative discussion : ESB 5061

A while back, we had this discussion going here, but I can't remember the thread.....anyway, I contacted them directly, and they have responded to the question I put forward...Interesting to me, her recommendation to ask the police for an interpretation of the law....

BILL: 5061 (Against)

SUBJECT: Clouded language in the bill

MESSAGE:

Ma'am,

I am writing to you to seek some direction regarding ESB 5061, that effectively call out bicycles in the definition of "vehicles" on roadways.

In the quick read that I've done I am not sure what the purpose of this bill actually accomplishes, but I think that it may put people at some risk for inadvertantly breaking the law as it regards the carry of guns under the new definition.

Under RCW 9.41

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

Carry of a loaded firearm (handgun), is allowed in vehicles provided you have a CPL, it is under your immediate control (on your person) etc. This is generally the interpretion held by most carriers as it relates to carry while (on) driving a motorcycle. There is some semantical debate on being "in" a vehicle, vs being "on" a vehicle....but for those of us who carry all the time and participate in these hobby activities like biking, we want to stay out of harms way from a legal standpoint.

In any case, I am inquiring as to your intent if any on this aspect, realtive to carry on a bicycle...it would appear that the re-definition of a bicycle as a "vehicle" clearly puts this into a category that requires a CPL in order to be legal.

Did your folks miss the research on impact to other RCW's on this one?

NOTE: We could not determine that this constituent is in your district


JT59,

Thank you for contacting me with your comments pertaining to ESB 5061. We have had several questions similar to yours regarding this piece of legislation.

ESB 5061 was essentially a technical correction bill and did not substantively change the definition of "vehicle." (There is no "new" definition. In fact, the definition of "vehicle" in RCW 46.04.670 has included bicycles since 1991.) Current law regarding guns & permits was not changed in this bill. Bicycles have always been considered vehicles for most purposes (they are not vehicles for title/registration and dealer/manufacturer purposes, but are vehicles for all other purposes). This concept was not changed in ESB 5061. Judiciary staff indicated that bicyclists, under previous & existing law, must have a permit to carry guns. Nothing changed with ESB 5061.

It may be helpful to know that when reading legislation that is amending current law, the underlined portion of the language indicates an addition and parenthesis and a strikethrough indicated a deletion, otherwise the language remains unchanged. In ESB 5061, RCW 46.04.670 was being amended to correct internal references to another section of law related to licensing and registration and had no effect on whether a bicycle is a "vehicle".

Further, courts have interpreted RCW 9.41.050 to "permit the carrying of a pistol in a vehicle only if the pistol is unloaded or the pistol is carried on the person of an individual who has a license." State v. Ray, 23. Wn. App. 238, 241 (1979). The Legislature did not amend RCW 9.41.050 during the 2011 session. As always, it would be prudent to check with local law enforcement should you have a question or concern about whether a license is needed to carry a weapon under certain circumstances.

I am including a link to the bill for your convenience if you would like to review it further:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5061&year=2011

I hope this helps to address your concerns.

Mary Margaret


SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO: Senator Mary Margaret Haugen

FROM: JT59 (Non-Constituent)

jt59 said:

...Interesting to me, her recommendation to ask the police for an interpretation of the law....

Click to expand...

That's because she's under the mistaken impression that the Police actually know the law and enforce it correctly.

Put that in the same category as "all police know how to drive safely" and "all police officers handle guns safely".

I've never worried about open carrying on a bicycle, and I wouldn't worry on a motorcycle either. Every other place in the law dealing with vehicles states "in or on" if they intend to cover both cases. It seems clear that the intention for the "need a cpl in a vehicle" law was because in a vehicle a sidearm is, effectively, concealed from outside view.

How about that! Little miss "you can't take 'OUR' money" (reference back to when the inititive to have a $30 license fee passed), actually gave you a personal answer (correct except for the "ask a LEO" part)

However jt59, you have something that is not correct in your part. "Under your control" does not equal "on your person" in the law as it applies to vehicle carry. It can be on your person, or the seat, on the dash, in the consol, in the glove box...it only has to be "under your control". (loaded with CPL, unloaded without CPL)

Tawnos said:

I've never worried about open carrying on a bicycle, and I wouldn't worry on a motorcycle either. Every other place in the law dealing with vehicles states "in or on" if they intend to cover both cases. It seems clear that the intention for the "need a cpl in a vehicle" law was because in a vehicle a sidearm is, effectively, concealed from outside view.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this assessment and I think if it ever made its way up the chain of courts, somewhere along the line, the in/on would be settled in favor of the "on" person defending against an "in" ticket. I am not however, volunteering to be the test case

Bobarino said:

I tend to agree with this assessment and I think if it ever made its way up the chain of courts, somewhere along the line, the in/on would be settled in favor of the "on" person defending against an "in" ticket. I am not however, volunteering to be the test case

Click to expand...

+1

I think most LEO's would view a holstered handgun in plain sight as "open carry" purely on the simplicity of the term and connection with what they see. If someone does happen to be a test case on this and the outcome is you must have a CPL to carry loaded while riding a bike, those without CPL's would have to invest in a cute little basket for the handlebars...or just tape it to their forehead

How does one get in a bicycle for this to apply? And if one is really concerned about it, simply carry your CPL and be done with it.
This is dealing with AN ACT Relating to reconciling changes made to vehicle and vessel
registration and title provisions during the 2010 legislative sessions,

Are you making to be more then what it is?

RCW9.41.050
(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.

Better yet lets get rid of the license requirement for CC, and everybody can carry however safely best suits them.

sudden valley gunner said:

Better yet lets get rid of the license requirement for CC, and everybody can carry however safely best suits them.

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty logical, given there's that thing called the 2nd Amendment. But then the anti's wouldn't know who all was carrying a firearm. It could be the recently released out of prison felon who could never, ever acquire a firearm since it's illegal for him to do so. :banghead:

BigDave said:

How does one get in a bicycle for this to apply?

Click to expand...

In this day and age of "technology" and innovation, there are now covers that one can use while riding their bicycle. Here's one:



And another:



I would guess that "technically" one would be "in" their bike if they had such a cover installed.

sudden valley gunner said:

Better yet lets get rid of the license requirement for CC, and everybody can carry however safely best suits them.

Click to expand...

Great idea if every State did so as well. Not so good if the bill for National Reciprocity passes. Only ones that will receive this reciprocity will be those with "Licenses/Permits".

Wobbles said:

Sounds pretty logical, given there's that thing called the 2nd Amendment. But then the anti's wouldn't know who all was carrying a firearm. It could be the recently released out of prison felon who could never, ever acquire a firearm since it's illegal for him to do so. :banghead:

Click to expand...

I personally have no problem with most recently released felons carrying a weapon, they are probably going to do so anyway.

It is a common statement made by cops and other anti's, "How do I know you are not.....felon, going to rob a bank, wife beater, etc.....(insert various rationalizations for violating your 4th here)."

My response "How do I know you aren't a pedophile?"

amlevin said:

Great idea if every State did so as well. Not so good if the bill for National Reciprocity passes. Only ones that will receive this reciprocity will be those with "Licenses/Permits".

Click to expand...

You can still issue CPL's for that reason, just not require them.

I am also for a Bill that would make us a shall accept state, that accepts any CC permit from any state, maybe that can be the stepping stone to Constitutional Carry, and would open the door of good will to be excepted in more states.

sudden valley gunner said:

I am also for a Bill that would make us a shall accept state, that accepts any CC permit from any state, maybe that can be the stepping stone to Constitutional Carry, and would open the door of good will to be excepted in more states.

Click to expand...

A good idea, maybe. On the other side of the coin, it's just another "State's Right" ceded to the Fed's. Could be good for one instance and just the "nose of the camel" for many other areas where we don't want the Fed's involved. Somewhere along the line everyone has overlooked the 10th Amendment.

amlevin said:

A good idea, maybe. On the other side of the coin, it's just another "State's Right" ceded to the Fed's. Could be good for one instance and just the "nose of the camel" for many other areas where we don't want the Fed's involved. Somewhere along the line everyone has overlooked the 10th Amendment.

Click to expand...

That's why I am "iffy" on Federal Bill's like the Thune amendment or national reciprocity for CC. Anything the Fed's involve themselves in eventually gets worse.

Let the states do it themselves.

do away with CC

sudden valley gunner said:

Better yet lets get rid of the license requirement for CC, and everybody can carry however safely best suits them.

Click to expand...

Sudden valley Gunner for president 2012

1911er said:

Sudden valley Gunner for president 2012

Click to expand...

-10

amlevin said:

That's because she's under the mistaken impression that the Police actually know the law and enforce it correctly.

Put that in the same category as "all police know how to drive safely" and "all police officers handle guns safely".

Click to expand...

And perhaps "All police are master marksmen, far superior in skill to any civilian."

Difdi said:

And perhaps "All police are master marksmen, far superior in skill to any civilian."

Click to expand...

I've heard rumors

Difdi said:

And perhaps "All police are master marksmen, far superior in skill to any civilian."

Click to expand...

Regular "Legends in their own minds".



Seriously, I have shot with some LEO's that ARE great marksmen. They are, however, the more quiet ones. Rarely if ever hear any comments from them about their skills.