• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Washington constitution vs RCW 9.41.050

rbaconator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
28
Location
Quincy, WA
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?
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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
 

rbaconator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
28
Location
Quincy, WA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top