Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Washington constitution vs RCW 9.41.050

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Quincy, WA
    Posts
    28

    Washington constitution vs RCW 9.41.050

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The rightof the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state,shallnot be impaired, ....

    (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.

    If my right to bear arms in defense is not to be impaired, why do I have to pay a fee to do so when I travel?

  2. #2
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Essentially the lawyers would say you don't have to pay a fee to carry your pistol unloaded and openly in a vehicle, only to carry the pistol loaded in a vehicle, which was enacted as an "officer safety" law under the guise of "reasonable restriction".

    Since Heller, the definition of "reasonable restriction" has been challenged in many ways, but unlicensed loaded carry in a car has not been one of them. Until it is challenged or the Wa. legislature is convinced by enough voters to change it, it will continue on the books at "reasonable".
    Last edited by FMCDH; 12-29-2011 at 09:37 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by rbaconator View Post
    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The rightof the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state,shallnot be impaired, ....

    (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.

    If my right to bear arms in defense is not to be impaired, why do I have to pay a fee to do so when I travel?
    hum, 1994, again,,,,looks like 050 is another section you can thank old Mike Lowery for. Like I said, I think we need an organized push to erase Lowery's unconstitutional anti firearms legacy

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Quincy, WA
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    hum, 1994, again,,,,looks like 050 is another section you can thank old Mike Lowery for. Like I said, I think we need an organized push to erase Lowery's unconstitutional anti firearms legacy
    Let's start pushing then. This seems like a good year to try with so many running for re-election and WA Ceasefire trying to make their push against us.

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    And this may not be a good year for any pro gun legislation or "housecleaning" of those that "infringe".

    The Budget will be first and foremost on the Legislator's minds and anything else will take a back burner. Who was it that said "It's the Economy, stupid!"?

    Of course this type of action might be just what they need to occupy their time while their leaders try and figure out how to find more money or programs to cut.
    "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?"

Posting Permissions

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