9.41.050 and 9.41.060 discussion

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

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html Terry v. Ohio

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1329012.html State v. Duncan

http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/uploads/file/828521_opn.pdf State v. Doughty

I decided to start a new thread on this, since, the other thread, has a consensual encounter providing a second fact for the LEO to use for his later actions and the demanding a Drivers License in addition to the CPL has gotten lost, which does deserve it's own thread, but I think no one here agrees the LEO was justified in his second demand.

If the citizen declines a consensual encounter it is my position that the LEO lacks enough facts under our State Constitution to compel an answer or to search or seize you to develop further facts. This would I suppose make the .050 law repealed by case law, since neither the "civil" infraction nor the "misdemeanor" can generate enough RAS or PC in isolation.

Fact he has a firearm.
Fact he gets on a bus, his car, the WSF, or whatever other vehicle you wish to use.

Based on reading the above cases from the US and the State Supreme Courts, the LEO does not have enough articuable facts to proceed.

So how does the LEO make his case that a misdeamenor is in progress in front of him, there are multiple methods that it is not a misdeamenor, just as there are multiple reasons why the activities in Duncan and Doughty were found to be unreasonabe.

Clearly there are a hand full that are either unable to do not acknowledge States ability to create law and the law stands until the legislature acts upon it or the States Higher Courts act upon it.

The legislature gave the authority to law enforcement to demand a CPL when

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

(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.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

The Legislature provided for exceptions in RCW 9.41.060 and upon the encounter to determine if one has a CPL and if not then if 060 applies to the individual.

If someone was cited, is found guilty and willing to invest time and money into seeing it through the appeal process or to get the legislature to change that portion of law then great but until then we are required to show a cpl if requested by an officer where it is required to have one or fall into one of the exceptions.

Gogodawgs if you feel "RCW 9.41.060(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;" then do you leave your CPL at home all the time and do not unload your firearm when you get into your vehicle? or Do the employees of the store you work at presently follow suit?
If you are vested into this thought process then you nor your employees should never need or carry a cpl.

The LEO lacks enough facts to allow more than a consensual encounter, since our Supreme Court doesn't allow "investigatory detention" for a "civil infraction".

"Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable in violation of state and federal constitutional rights.   However, the United States Supreme Court and this court have recognized a few carefully drawn exceptions when a limited stop may be permissible.   To stop and detain Duncan, the officers needed a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was about to occur.   Possessing or consuming alcohol in public is not a crime and we decline to extend the Terry stop exception to include nontraffic civil infractions.   The officers may also have possessed grounds to stop and detain Duncan if the civil infraction either occurred in their presence or they had filed a statement with the court that they had a reasonable basis upon which to believe that a civil infraction had been committed.   Duncan did not have actual or constructive possession of the bottle, thus the infraction did not occur in their presence.   No statement was filed with the court.

We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's decision." State v. Duncan.

Unless the LEO has a factual basis for the firearm is loaded, how does he write a valid .050 civil ticket or arrest you for a misdemeanor. State v. Doughty has multiple "facts" that do not add up to RAS or PC in regards to otherwise lawful actions.

"In contrast, here Bishop relied only on his own incomplete observations. There
was no informant’s tip (which was the element we found most persuasive in Kennedy,
id. at 6-8) and no furtive movement. Bishop merely saw Doughty approach and leave
a suspected drug house at 3:20 a.m. Bishop had no idea what, if anything, Doughty
did at the house. The totality of these circumstances does not warrant intrusion into
Doughty’s private affairs" State v. Doughty

Explain how the fact the firearm is loaded is determined by any factual basis.

Vitaeus said:

The LEO lacks enough facts to allow more than a consensual encounter, since our Supreme Court doesn't allow "investigatory detention" for a "civil infraction".

"Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable in violation of state and federal constitutional rights.   However, the United States Supreme Court and this court have recognized a few carefully drawn exceptions when a limited stop may be permissible.   To stop and detain Duncan, the officers needed a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was about to occur.   Possessing or consuming alcohol in public is not a crime and we decline to extend the Terry stop exception to include nontraffic civil infractions.   The officers may also have possessed grounds to stop and detain Duncan if the civil infraction either occurred in their presence or they had filed a statement with the court that they had a reasonable basis upon which to believe that a civil infraction had been committed.   Duncan did not have actual or constructive possession of the bottle, thus the infraction did not occur in their presence.   No statement was filed with the court.

We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's decision." State v. Duncan.

Unless the LEO has a factual basis for the firearm is loaded, how does he write a valid .050 civil ticket or arrest you for a misdemeanor. State v. Doughty has multiple "facts" that do not add up to RAS or PC in regards to otherwise lawful actions.

"In contrast, here Bishop relied only on his own incomplete observations. There
was no informant’s tip (which was the element we found most persuasive in Kennedy,
id. at 6-8) and no furtive movement. Bishop merely saw Doughty approach and leave
a suspected drug house at 3:20 a.m. Bishop had no idea what, if anything, Doughty
did at the house. The totality of these circumstances does not warrant intrusion into
Doughty’s private affairs" State v. Doughty

Explain how the fact the firearm is loaded is determined by any factual basis.

Click to expand...

It has been addressed and explained in this thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105102-Photo-ID-with-a-CPL-to-OC-on-a-bus

All this thread is a repeat of another.

actually Dave I split this off since the issue of the demand for a driver's license got lost in the discussion of this topic, but feel free to stay or go, everyone's opinion is welcome.

Oh, I have yet to have anyone state the factual basis for the firearm being loaded from the LEOs vantage point, without consensual information from the carrier or some violation of his person and property. The LEOs opinion is not sufficient in my readings of the cited decisions by the WA Supreme Court. I do agree someone may need to take a stand on it to get it set in stone, since none of the cases I can find specifdically deal with this issue.

Real life happened...about 25 years ago...to me.

We were hunting above Lake Chelan and had gone down to Manson for supplies. (6" Colt revolver in a hunting holster, impossible to tell if it was loaded from the outside (it was))

While in the grocery store, some lady called in to 911 that there was a MWAG in the grocery store. I have no idea of her relation to the store if any. No one had said anything to me in the store. remember 25 years ago cell phones were not that common, I assumed she used a store phone or a pay phone.

I was loading the supplies we purchased into the camper when the Chelan Co Deputy Sheriff arrived to investigate this MWAG call... He drives in, no lights, no siren, gets out of his Sheriff's SUV and walks over to our camper. Sheriff's Deputy asks: "Hunting?" (remember, Exemption RCW 9.41.060(8)) Me: "yep". That was the total and complete conversation. Completely consensual encounter, very properly handled. Deputy answered his question and the Deputy did not need to go any farther, and did not.

This is a perfect example of "presumed innocence"

If the encounter began by a demand for ID, the encounter would not have been consensual, because if he had demanded ID, I would have answered "Am I being detained?" No, ?have a good day". Yes, "why am I being detained"? Probably followed by please contact you supervisor, I have nothing to say to you.

Slightly different topic than what I was stating about RAS on the other thread.

But I agree with your assessment Vitaeus.

I like to substitute verbs and nouns in sentences sometimes to think about the meaning.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

becomes.....


(b) Every hungry person shall have his or her money in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have money and shall give the same upon demand to any grocer or to any other person selling food when and if they desire to eat.

To me the qualifier obviously applies to both the grocer and the person selling food. So no cops just cant demand to see your CPL at anytime but can they demand it when you are on a bus, and open carrying?

I agree with your assessment.

1: I walk up to my car, with keys in hand and I'm within line of sight of a LEO... Does he have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my driver's license or for that matter, proof of insurance and registration?

2: I'm standing at a bus transet center waiting for a bus iwh a handgun on my hip. Does the officer standing near by have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my consealed weapon permit and ID?

With both examples, each activity is illegal without the proper permits/licenses.

It's already an established fact that any washington state LEO cannot even ask to see your driver's license without Probable Cause or Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion. What makes this any different then the 2nd example?

I copied this from the forum earlier this year because I thought it was interesting and it appears to be relevant to this discussion, so I'll post it.

Originally Posted by eye95

In GA, a person was observed putting his gun on. He then entered a train. The officer that observed the holstering stopped the carrier and demanded his CPL. The court ruled that the stop and the demand were lawful because having the CPL was a defense to the charge of carrying on a train, and not an element of the crime. Therefore the LEO, knowing the carrier was carrying, had knowledge of all the elements of the crime and had RAS. The carrier could defend himself against the suspicion by producing the license. Had he chosen not to produce the license, the officer would have arrested him. Producing the license at the trial would result in acquittal.

If the law had been written in a way such that not having the license was an element of the crime, then, until the officer had reason to believe the carrier had no license, he (ironically) could not demand it.

Very interesting. So what about this Washington law:

(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.

The way I read it, not having a CPL is an element of the crime regarding carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, person open carrying, which requires no license in Washington, gets into a vehicle... I see no RAS for the officer to stop the person at that point only for the reason of verifying they have a CPL, unless there was actual reason to believe the person did not have a CPL. Correct?

BigDave said:

Clearly there are a hand full that are either unable to do not acknowledge States ability to create law and the law stands until the legislature acts upon it or the States Higher Courts act upon it.

The legislature gave the authority to law enforcement to demand a CPL when



The Legislature provided for exceptions in RCW 9.41.060 and upon the encounter to determine if one has a CPL and if not then if 060 applies to the individual.

If someone was cited, is found guilty and willing to invest time and money into seeing it through the appeal process or to get the legislature to change that portion of law then great but until then we are required to show a cpl if requested by an officer where it is required to have one or fall into one of the exceptions.

Gogodawgs if you feel "RCW 9.41.060(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;" then do you leave your CPL at home all the time and do not unload your firearm when you get into your vehicle? or Do the employees of the store you work at presently follow suit?
If you are vested into this thought process then you nor your employees should never need or carry a cpl.

Click to expand...

Along the lines of what I was thinking as well. Should anyone encounter a LEO while OCing in a vehicle or bus and he asks for a cpl, go ahead and stay silent. Go ahead and refuse to answer a simple question. Is your weapon loaded? or Do you have a CPL? Lets see how far that will get you. People on here are all law abiding citizens but some seem to want to push the limits. Only thing that does is put a bad taste in somes mouth. Talking to LEOs is not always a bad thing, answering a simple question is not always a bad thing. If I am waiting for the bus and a LEO just happens to ask me if my weapon is loaded, I am going to say yes. If he asks me to show my CPL, I will. That is my call. Eveyone has a choice as to what they will do. If you choose to stay silent, then more than likely you will be detained and you may be arrested. If you want to take that route, by all means you go ahead. However, YOU will end up showing your CPL no matter which way you look at it, so you might as well show it and avoind all the court time.

Ditto DeltaOps, it has become like a badge of honor with a few on the forum to go into the extremes and if they place themselves in harms way, by all means go for it, but to encourage others to harms way by encouraging confrontational encounters and implying that we have nothing to hide or doing something wrong or they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.

The attitude taken by these few are seen in convicts and criminals with not a thought of anyone but themselves and will brow beat anyone opposing them.

If I am asked for my CPL, I have no issue, If asked for my ID, I have no issue and I will continue to talk with law enforcement on encounters without fear of someone being out to get me attitude often expressed here.

Is there bad in this world, no doubt though there is so much more good in all aspects of my life anyways, is that being a positivist sure but better then being a negativist and fear everyone is out to get them and display a screw them before they screw you attitudes.

Vitaeus said:

Oh, I have yet to have anyone state the factual basis for the firearm being loaded from the LEOs vantage point, without consensual information from the carrier or some violation of his person and property. The LEOs opinion is not sufficient in my readings of the cited decisions by the WA Supreme Court. I do agree someone may need to take a stand on it to get it set in stone, since none of the cases I can find specifdically deal with this issue.

Click to expand...

Washington is not California. An unloaded firearm makes a very poor club and an even poorer throwing knife. Carrying a firearm for purposes of self-defense is partially defeated by unloaded carry. IMO it's not unreasonable to assume people would be carrying a loaded firearm when not in places that require it be unloaded; And seeing someone move from such a place where loaded carry is legal into a place where it is not, without unloading, would create some suspicion that a crime had been committed.

Is it enough to make a non-consensual investigative stop, in and of itself? I doubt it. But an officer certainly could wander over and ask a few questions in a consensual encounter. And the answers (if any) could lead to enough reasonable suspicion to go further.

Note that some holster/firearm combinations do make it possible to tell at a glance whether the weapon is loaded.

Grim_Night said:

1: I walk up to my car, with keys in hand and I'm within line of sight of a LEO... Does he have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my driver's license or for that matter, proof of insurance and registration?

Click to expand...

If the matter is simply as you described, no he does not. If you stumble twice, puke once and drop your keys three times as you attempt to enter your car, well, that's another story.

Grim_Night said:

2: I'm standing at a bus transet center waiting for a bus iwh a handgun on my hip. Does the officer standing near by have the right, duty or responsability to ask me for my consealed weapon permit and ID?

Click to expand...

Anybody has the right to ask. But I suspect you meant demand, not ask. Simply standing there, no he does not. Though it's worth noting that in the other thread, the OP was asked if his gun was loaded and if he was waiting for a bus, and he answered both questions affirmatively. Doing that would give an officer authority to ask about exemptions to 9.41.050, the most common of which is answered with the display of a CPL. But even then, he wouldn't have cause to demand to see a driver's license or state ID card.

Grim_Night said:

With both examples, each activity is illegal without the proper permits/licenses.

It's already an established fact that any washington state LEO cannot even ask to see your driver's license without Probable Cause or Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion. What makes this any different then the 2nd example?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. If no crime is being committed, and no crime appears to be about to be committed, the extent of the officer's authority is to engage in a consensual interaction, and ask some polite questions, which the person he's talking to is under no legal obligation to answer.

ARADCOM said:

The way I read it, not having a CPL is an element of the crime regarding carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, person open carrying, which requires no license in Washington, gets into a vehicle... I see no RAS for the officer to stop the person at that point only for the reason of verifying they have a CPL, unless there was actual reason to believe the person did not have a CPL. Correct?

Click to expand...

Which leaves the officer having witnessed a misdemeanor being committed. If he is not allowed to ask about a CPL or other exemption to the law, he has still seen an action that is a crime. That's probable cause. So he makes an arrest, and when it comes to light that the arrestee has a CPL, the charges are dropped. Personally, given the choice between being hauled to a police station in handcuffs and answering a reasonable question, I'll answer the question.

BigDave said:

Ditto DeltaOps, it has become like a badge of honor with a few on the forum to go into the extremes and if they place themselves in harms way, by all means go for it, but to encourage others to harms way by encouraging confrontational encounters and implying that we have nothing to hide or doing something wrong or they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.

The attitude taken by these few are seen in convicts and criminals with not a thought of anyone but themselves and will brow beat anyone opposing them.

If I am asked for my CPL, I have no issue, If asked for my ID, I have no issue and I will continue to talk with law enforcement on encounters without fear of someone being out to get me attitude often expressed here.

Is there bad in this world, no doubt though there is so much more good in all aspects of my life anyways, is that being a positivist sure but better then being a negativist and fear everyone is out to get them and display a screw them before they screw you attitudes.

Click to expand...

hmm, so standing up for your rights is the province of convicts and criminals? I wonder where we would be if someone named Rosa Parks had been willing to move to the back of the bus, in accordance with the law of the time. Sounds like pretty good company to me, but that is merely my opinion freely expressed an offered up to others.

I am merely discussing my views of the cases the Supreme Court of our state have decided, you are welcome to your opinion. I do make an assumption that all "men" are capable of making up their own minds, the only citations I have seen are from the RCWs, while mine are from case law incident to them. The legislature is able to make any law it can get a majority to support, this does not mean the law will stand the test of "constitutionality" the cases cited seem to me to indicate that there is room for my interpretation, if you would be so kind as to provide some cases that support your view, that would be a basis for discussion.

@difdi, I agree some holster/firearms could provide a visual indication to a knowledgeable LEO as the firearm is loaded as a FACT, but other than that it seems you are agreeing that the simple act of getting in/on a vehicle with a holstered firearm does not present enough facts to proceed past a consensual encounter, or am I misreading your post?

Vitaeus said:

hmm, so standing up for your rights is the province of convicts and criminals? I wonder where we would be if someone named Rosa Parks had been willing to move to the back of the bus, in accordance with the law of the time. Sounds like pretty good company to me, but that is merely my opinion freely expressed an offered up to others.

I am merely discussing my views of the cases the Supreme Court of our state have decided, you are welcome to your opinion. I do make an assumption that all "men" are capable of making up their own minds, the only citations I have seen are from the RCWs, while mine are from case law incident to them. The legislature is able to make any law it can get a majority to support, this does not mean the law will stand the test of "constitutionality" the cases cited seem to me to indicate that there is room for my interpretation, if you would be so kind as to provide some cases that support your view, that would be a basis for discussion.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.

found another citation:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1386780.html State v. ALMANZA-GUZMAN, Jan 1999

Firearm plus suspicion that a permit is required does not equate to RAS, even for at the time a felony (since changed in the RCWs). If the WA Appeals court finds a gun plus the suspicion a permit is required is insufficient for an investigative detention, what do you expect the reaction will be for a "civil infraction" or a misdemeanor?

No I have a CPL since the current law requires that I have one to make my carry of a firearm legal in a few more places, no where in this discussion am I advocating breaking the law, I am asserting that my right to privacy shields me from unwarranted searches/seizures/invasions of my privacy. I disagree with the law (.050) based on our constitution , I also disagree that we need a license to exercise a right, but that is a different discussion.

Vitaeus said:

found another citation:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1386780.html State v. ALMANZA-GUZMAN, Jan 1999

Firearm plus suspicion that a permit is required does not equate to RAS, even for at the time a felony (since changed in the RCWs). If the WA Appeals court finds a gun plus the suspicion a permit is required is insufficient for an investigative detention, what do you expect the reaction will be for a "civil infraction" or a misdemeanor?

No I have a CPL since the current law requires that I have one to make my carry of a firearm legal in a few more places, no where in this discussion am I advocating breaking the law, I am asserting that my right to privacy shields me from unwarranted searches/seizures/invasions of my privacy. I disagree with the law (.050) based on our constitution , I also disagree that we need a license to exercise a right, but that is a different discussion.

Click to expand...

+1

It isn't about paranoia, it isn't about having something to hide, it isn't about instilling fear it is about protecting something sacred our fundamental rights.

I also got one because the current law says I need it doesn't mean I agree with the law.

DeltaOps said:

Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.

Click to expand...

What has this contributed to this thread other than "Show your CPL" because I do?

BigDave said:

Ditto DeltaOps, it has become like a badge of honor with a few on the forum to go into the extremes and if they place themselves in harms way, by all means go for it, but to encourage others to harms way by encouraging confrontational encounters and implying that we have nothing to hide or doing something wrong or they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.

The attitude taken by these few are seen in convicts and criminals with not a thought of anyone but themselves and will brow beat anyone opposing them.

If I am asked for my CPL, I have no issue, If asked for my ID, I have no issue and I will continue to talk with law enforcement on encounters without fear of someone being out to get me attitude often expressed here.

Is there bad in this world, no doubt though there is so much more good in all aspects of my life anyways, is that being a positivist sure but better then being a negativist and fear everyone is out to get them and display a screw them before they screw you attitudes.

Click to expand...

Funny, so those who stand up for rights are extremist, anarchist and criminals? Thomas Jefferson Rolling over in his grave.

Ummmm by the way I don't think you grasp the definition of positivist it goes hand in hand with statism.

I would suggest you guys discuss this in another section. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...oduce-ID-for-the-police&p=1802539#post1802539

Vitaeus said:

found another citation:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1386780.html State v. ALMANZA-GUZMAN, Jan 1999

Firearm plus suspicion that a permit is required does not equate to RAS, even for at the time a felony (since changed in the RCWs). If the WA Appeals court finds a gun plus the suspicion a permit is required is insufficient for an investigative detention, what do you expect the reaction will be for a "civil infraction" or a misdemeanor?

No I have a CPL since the current law requires that I have one to make my carry of a firearm legal in a few more places, no where in this discussion am I advocating breaking the law, I am asserting that my right to privacy shields me from unwarranted searches/seizures/invasions of my privacy. I disagree with the law (.050) based on our constitution , I also disagree that we need a license to exercise a right, but that is a different discussion.

Click to expand...

Our discussion is in the face of a restricted area defined in RCW 9.41.050 and RCW 9.41.300 or a place that requires possession of a CPL.
Your cite holds no weight as the circumstances where ALMANZA-GUZMAN was not in, dare I say it again "a restricted area requiring a CPL"

Nothing has been cited here where the State cannot enact a law that requires one to produce a CPL while in a restricted area (requiring a CPL to be in their possession and displayed upon demand by law enforcement).

Our actions in public both help and hinder the normalization of carry or open carry, it is up to each person on how much effort they put into help or hinder.

DeltaOps said:

Like I said, you go ahead and remain silent and lets see how far that will get you, but to install paranoia in others is what the Government is already doing. Fear mongering is what some call it as well. Some of you are so stuck on rights, and that is all you can say. Yes we have rights, we should defend them, but holy crap, for the love of god (or whoever you believe in), LEOs are not all bad. They are not always out to get you. If you treat them like you would want to be treated, maybe you would see that they are not all that bad. If he asks for your CPL while you are waiting, show it to him. Instead of remaining silent, show it and spark up a conversation. Talk about what he carries and why. Ask him how his day is going. Maybe see what his opinion on others that show attitude are. Its all about getting along and educating at the same time. In the end though, its your choice on how you handle the situation, all I am asking is to stop trying to put fear in others. Maybe some people are not smart enough to know when to stop talking or how far to take it. If you like to brag and show off, maybe its better to just hush. Than again, maybe you should just tear up your CPL, you wont ever need it with your thinking.

Click to expand...

Of course not all LEOs are bad, the problem being is how do you tell the bad ones from the good ones during a stop???? How do you know if that LEO is out to get you or not until its too late???? The way I look at it is even if only 10% of LEOs are bad eggs I have a greater than 1 in ten chance of running into a jerk that could make my life tough for simply exercising my state and federal constitutional rights. I am sorry but I do not like those odds not to mention I believe the bad LEO percentage is more like 20 to 30%.

All I am asking is for the LEO to follow the law(s) after all that is what LEOs are demanding of me. Whats wrong with demanding LEOs follow the letter of the law??? No one has to be rude including the LEO and I am not suggesting rudeness be employed by anyone.

It is also obvious that you have not been on the receiving end of a bad LEO encounter that will do more than anything else to change your attitude about how you are willing to interact with LE.