slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
you folks that wrote letters.... PM me a copy of what you are asking and let me see what I can do. I have a way in but can't use it too much.
Bill
Ill write up a draft and send it over.
you folks that wrote letters.... PM me a copy of what you are asking and let me see what I can do. I have a way in but can't use it too much.
Bill
It may be useful to think about how RCW 77 is written as concerns carry of a loaded long gun...it specifically states "...in or on..."
RCW 9.41 only says "in"???? Eh?
you folks that wrote letters.... PM me a copy of what you are asking and let me see what I can do. I have a way in but can't use it too much.
Bill
Here is my draft of what I would send. Short, Sweet, To the point. Document [PDF]
This leads me to ask a similar question. How visable does a gun need to be to not be "concealed?" I often wear a jacket that covers some of my revolver's grip but some of the frame and the holster is visable. I have a holster I wear on occasions that's an old military style that has a large flap that covers almost the entire side arm with just the butt sticking out.
This is somewhat on topic with this thread because both conditions exist due to my motorcycle riding. I'm not overly concered about myself being in trouble as I keep my CPL with me but it would be nice to know.
It may be useful to think about how RCW 77 is written as concerns carry of a loaded long gun...it specifically states "...in or on..."
RCW 9.41 only says "in"???? Eh?
I agree with BigDave, there is no definition of "concealed" in the RCW's, i would expect that the old style holster would not be considered concealed. The other part of the equation is that WA CPL is shall issue and costs just $55 and removes some silly restrictions and allows you to avoid the load/unload in regards to vehicles and GFSZ issues, which is worth it in my opinion.
Can't give specific cites but if my memory serves correctly, several times this has been brought up in court cases and the outcome has been "as long as a reasonable person can discern that the object carried is a firearm it is not considered concealed". To me this could mean a Flap Style holster that covers all but the butt of the firearm, still is discernible as a firearm to that "reasonable person". IWB holsters are another subject of discussion. As long as you can tell it's a firearm, and not covered by a garment it's openly carried.
I agree that getting a CPL removes a lot of silly restrictions but there are those who are opposed them as they feel they're akin to "asking permission".
Frankly, I would like to see it something that can just be an endorsement on your drivers license. Just like the "enhanced" licenses issued now for easy border crossing in/out of Canada, just go through the same rigmarole with the questionnaire and fingerprints. One document for when you need it and takes less room in your wallet.
The reply didn't take long...
Good Morning Bill,
After searching the laws as to the definition of a vehicle it appears both a bicycle and motorcycle meet the definition as outlined under RCW 46.04.670. Any persons transporting a firearm by means of these vehicles would be required to abide by RCW 9.41.050 2(a). If you are leaving the firearm at the vehicle, you would need to have a way to lock the firearm ‘inside’ the vehicle. A lot of bikes have saddle bags and most of them have the ability to be locked. If someone is wanting to leave their firearm in/at their bicycle or motorcycle while they are away they would need to have some kind of device/attachment that would allow the firearm to be locked inside and the firearm be concealed from view.
The reply didn't take long...
Good Morning Bill,
After searching the laws as to the definition of a vehicle it appears both a bicycle and motorcycle meet the definition as outlined under RCW 46.04.670. Any persons transporting a firearm by means of these vehicles would be required to abide by RCW 9.41.050 2(a). If you are leaving the firearm at the vehicle, you would need to have a way to lock the firearm ‘inside’ the vehicle. A lot of bikes have saddle bags and most of them have the ability to be locked. If someone is wanting to leave their firearm in/at their bicycle or motorcycle while they are away they would need to have some kind of device/attachment that would allow the firearm to be locked inside and the firearm be concealed from view.
The reply didn't take long...
Good Morning Bill,
After searching the laws as to the definition of a vehicle it appears both a bicycle and motorcycle meet the definition as outlined under RCW 46.04.670. Any persons transporting a firearm by means of these vehicles would be required to abide by RCW 9.41.050 2(a). If you are leaving the firearm at the vehicle, you would need to have a way to lock the firearm ‘inside’ the vehicle. A lot of bikes have saddle bags and most of them have the ability to be locked. If someone is wanting to leave their firearm in/at their bicycle or motorcycle while they are away they would need to have some kind of device/attachment that would allow the firearm to be locked inside and the firearm be concealed from view.
Yeah, this was my problem as well. They took from my message the wrong thing and answered it excellently. For me, it was about the firearm being concealed, whether in a vehicle or on a motorcycle and since it does require a License to conceal then it is required. For you, it's leaving it unattended.
Also, if it's so difficult to get an answer form the AG, how the hell did I actually get an answer? I'm pretty much a nobody 23 year old. I have no political ties, no contacts, etc... Why did they take the time to answer me?... I feel important, now. lol
Just so everyone can have the info, I contacted them through their online "Contact Us" link on their website
https://fortress.wa.gov/atg/formhandler/ago/ContactForm.aspx
Also, it was one of the Assistant AGs that answered my question. I really wish I hadn't deleted the response, I just thought it was so off topic that I didn't need it kept. I didn't know a response with any substance was rare. Lol