To those who didn't understand what I meant by different readings, I think the crux of the matter in (b) is whether the antecedent of "to do so" is "shall have in h/h immediate possession" or "shall display". If it's the latter (which I think is the stronger reading, absent any clarifying text elsewhere in the RCW and/or any case law) then there would have to be an explicit provision of the law stating specific circumstances where there was a "shall display to any other person" requirement.(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.
kp, outstanding analysis, as well as JAC's initial explanation. Forgive me, it's getting late and I'm (again) about to violate my don't post when tired rule - but - I'm going to go with the "shall display" option. Here's why.To those who didn't understand what I meant by different readings, I think the crux of the matter in (b) is whether the antecedent of "to do so" is "shall have in h/h immediate possession" or "shall display". If it's the latter (which I think is the stronger reading, absent any clarifying text elsewhere in the RCW and/or any case law) then there would have to be an explicit provision of the law stating specific circumstances where there was a "shall display to any other person" requirement.(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.
And just_a_car, your explanation makes sense as a logical matter--I just can't see how it can be justified by the text of 9.41.050 alone.
That's easy (if not obvious); it's either:I don't see a concrete reading of it where the condition doesn't apply to both a police officer and any other person.
and oh you can bet your ass it would never ever goany furtherbecause you don't have the time or the money to waste to try and take a security officer to court because they didn't show you their license.
Why do you guys insist on ignoring the relevant part of the statement "or to any other personwhen and if required by law to do so" Where does the law say you have to show your CPL to anyone else?As far as I know it does notspecificly give civilians the right to ask you for your CPL anymore than they have a right to ask to see your DL.owensd,
That's easy (if not obvious); it's either:I don't see a concrete reading of it where the condition doesn't apply to both a police officer and any other person.
and shall display the same upon demand ( to any police officer or to any other person ) when and if required by law to do sovs
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 )Neither of them make for a totally happy reading. The former gives everyone the same authority as the police officer to demand to see your CPL when you're required to have it (and does not set up an intermediate class of authorized demanders such as bus drivers); the latter is perhaps a reference to other sections of the RCW spelling out additional requirements for displaying the CPL (which as far as I can tell do not exist), or else self-referential nonsense (nonsense in that if it is self-referential then the distinction between police and others collapses.)
If it said "and" between "police officer" and "to any other person" then it wouldapply toboth. Since it says "or" the "required by law"only applies to the any other person.Bear, that's the point right... if the "when required by law" is directed at both the police officer AND anyone else or if it is solely directed at anyone else. That part of the statement isn't clear as who it is directed toward.
If it's only directed toward "anyone", then I don't see a law that says you go. If it's directed toward both, then you only need to show it to a police officer when required by law, which I'm not seeing here either.
So where are the laws that state that we need to show it to anyone (including a police officer)?
Bear,
Still waiting for some acknowledgement from you that I was right, and you were wrong, about where the "required to display" part occurs.
Bear,
Still waiting for some acknowledgement from you that I was right, and you were wrong, about where the "required to display" part occurs.
doesn't leave me feeling a whole lot more informed; is there a list of all the "breach of the peace" misdomeanors somewhere?a private person can conduct a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor if the misdemeanor: (1) was committed in the citizen’s presence and (2) constituted a breach of the peace.
"If you want to waste police time and resources checking on something legal, be my guest."SNIP NOW the cops come and you HAVE to show your permit.
Imagine "granola eaters" dismay when the cops show up and tell you to have a nice day and leave.All the time he thinking you would be hauled away .This may make for some interesting reading:
http://dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/citizenarrest1.pdf
If unlawful carry of a firearm is a misdemeanor it to can be justification for a Citizen's Arrest. If one is challenged for carrying, it might be the circumstance that is described in the RCWas that "any other person".
The above document is directed at security guards but outlines the legality of Citizen's Arrests in WA State (with cites).
I could see a Seattle "Granola Eater", who is riding the bus and notices someone wearing a gun, challenging the carrier. If told to "pound sand" or pretend his comments are like a suppository and to put them where it goes, that "granola eater" is most assuredly going to pull out his cell phone and call 911 (wonder how big a carbon footprint that cell phone left on the planet with it's manufacture etc?). NOW the cops come and you HAVE to show your permit.
Or the granola boy gets ticketed for a false 911 call.amlevin wrote:Imagine "granola eaters" dismay when the cops show up and tell you to have a nice day and leave.All the time he thinking you would be hauled away .This may make for some interesting reading:
http://dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/citizenarrest1.pdf
If unlawful carry of a firearm is a misdemeanor it to can be justification for a Citizen's Arrest. If one is challenged for carrying, it might be the circumstance that is described in the RCWas that "any other person".
The above document is directed at security guards but outlines the legality of Citizen's Arrests in WA State (with cites).
I could see a Seattle "Granola Eater", who is riding the bus and notices someone wearing a gun, challenging the carrier. If told to "pound sand" or pretend his comments are like a suppository and to put them where it goes, that "granola eater" is most assuredly going to pull out his cell phone and call 911 (wonder how big a carbon footprint that cell phone left on the planet with it's manufacture etc?). NOW the cops come and you HAVE to show your permit.
Only if they knew it was legal; but I agree... there should be more tickets for people that waste the time and resources of the hard-working police when they know it's legal and they have an unreasonable phobia of armed citizens.Or the granola boy gets ticketed for a false 911 call.