Off-person carry in vehicle with CPL illegal

[Tawnos]

imported post

Lammo wrote:

1245A Defender wrote:

we seem to agree that a loaded gun can be concealed and locked in the car when you are away from the vehicle.
just what becomes of this lawful activity when you remove it from the holster and hide it under the seat,, but you havent gotten out of the car yet?
are you breaking the law for a second, a minute, 5, 10?

That question is what this whole thread is about. RCW 9.41.050 (2) says: Have a CPL and (i), (ii) or (iii). Some of us read that "," between (i) and (ii) as OR and some of us read it as AND. I, unfortunately, started this whole thing by pointing out on another thread that the only case I could find on the subject interprets a prior version of the law and leads me to believe that it reads AND. I want it to read OR but I know that there are LEOs and prosecutors out there who can and will read it as AND and who are hostile to RKBA. You'd think I was questioning the Catholicity of the Pope (which, as a 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus, I would never do). Anyway, this is far from nonsense but I'm done.

Done, and still wrong. You misread, it's okay, happens to all of us at some point. Better to be a bigger man and say "oh, huh, misread" than to argue to the grave that someone might decide to play quantum conjunction with the separator of i and ii.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

OK i can think of lots of new and better ways that i could write in order to convince you guys that I AM RIGHT!

but im not gonna do that,, im just gonna hold my breath, until everybody on the internet agrees with me.
:shock:

 

[911Boss]

imported post

For the record, I am on the OR OR OR side. This argument has come up repeatedly over the years, and it really does come down to common sense and basic english as previously pointed out (comma comma comma OR= the same as "or" between everything and if it was "and", then only 2 of the three items need be listed)

So let me see if I have Lammo's point correctly. This SPECIFIC current law does not, as of yet, have any known case law that has made it all the way to the top and therefore when and if that happens, nobody could possibly know how the ruling would go so therefore opinions, jury instructions, lack of arrests and charges, etc....cannot be relied on and basing ones actions on that broad scope of information COULD put someone at risk, because UNTIL a law is ruled on from on high, no one can REALLY know what it means?

Therefore it is Lammo's sage legal advice with 22+ years as a prosecutor (who admittedly has never charged/prosecuted anyone under this interpretation) that there is some specific and legitimate risk in placing your loaded gun in your car while you are there, but not have it physically on your body.

I am convinced! I believe it IS less likely for you to be charged or prosecuted if you have it on your body instead of on the seat. So now that that is settled, lets try and get a read on the increased margin of safety from prosecution this interpretation provides... (whips out calculator and furiously mashes buttons...)

Ok, I double checked and made sure to carry the 1...

You stand a 1/10 to the 8th power (.0000001%) less chance of being arrested, charged, and prosecuted (Note- this means "arrested AND charged AND prosecuted"...not to be confused with "arrested OR charged AND prosecuted") by carrying it on-body instead of on-seat. I am sure most will agree that this is a statistically insignificant risk.

Using Lammo's logic, no one really know what most of our laws mean as most of them don't have published SCOWS rulings to support and clarify them for us.

Therefore my advice to all is to never do anything, never go anywhere. Doing so is a risk!

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

OK if 2 guys on the internet, at least agree with my view point, then i will breath again. thank you 911 boss an navy lt. i was starting to get woozy

 

[911Boss]

imported post

I did consider that variable, but my understanding of Lammo's post was that it related to the confluence of you carrying in such a manner, doing something that provided PC for a stop, and having the officer who stopped you being of the and or camp, and doing so in a jurisdictional area with a prosecutor who also is an and or'er...

ie- the risk of it becoming an issue in the first place. Only after that occurs can one even begin to try and calculate all of the variables of a successful prosecution....

 

[911Boss]

imported post

Of course, staying in one place and not doing anything poses risks as well.... OH NOES!!!!

We should just make laws that say risks are illegal, THEN we can be safe!

 

[ak56]

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

OK if 2 guys on the internet, at least agree with my view point, then i will breath again. thank you 911 boss an navy lt. i was starting to get woozy

+1

 

[911Boss]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

You know, the instructions for my MP3 player say:

This MP3 player uses 2 AAA batteries AND these batteries may be:  alkaline batteries, rechargeable alkaline batteries, OR rechargeable LI ION batteries.  Now, I am really confused... according to Lammo I have to use alkaline, rechargeable alkaline AND LI ION batteries - but it only holds two batteries

You shoulda bought an iPod....

 

[Aryk45XD]

imported post

i'm glad this has at least moved on to the humor stage. I'm in full agreement of the "i or ii or iii" I too can breath easy again. I was worried there were no other English majors in the room.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

Aryk45XD wrote:

i'm glad this has at least moved on to the humor stage. I'm in full agreement of the "i or ii or iii" I too can breath easy again. I was worried there were no other English majors in the room.

There aren't, go home!

Computer engineer with a knack for grammar Naziesque behavior.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Aryk45XD wrote:

i'm glad this has at least moved on to the humor stage. I'm in full agreement of the "i or ii or iii" I too can breath easy again. I was worried there were no other English majors in the room.

There aren't, go home!

Computer engineer with a knack for grammar Naziesque behavior.

im shocked that "you" would come out with that!
its just fine with me that youre sure of your interpretation of that RCW.:cuss:
you can be rude on the forum,, but that was just really ruuuude!!:cuss:

 

[Lammo]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

You know, the instructions for my MP3 player say:

This MP3 player uses 2 AAA batteries AND these batteries may be: alkaline batteries, rechargeable alkaline batteries, OR rechargeable LI ION batteries. Now, I am really confused... according to Lammo I have to use alkaline, rechargeable alkaline AND LI ION batteries - but it only holds two batteries

On second thought, I'll just keep my mouth shut.

 

[W9GFO]

imported post

Something I might tell my kids;

(a) You may not play video games unless your homework is done and:

(i) Your room is clean,
(ii) the dishes are done, or
(iii) you mowed the lawn

So if their room is clean but they did not do the dishes, can they play?

 

[FMCDH]

imported post

W9GFO wrote:

Something I might tell my kids;

(a) You may not play video games unless your homework is done and:

(i) Your room is clean,
(ii) the dishes are done, or
(iii) you mowed the lawn

So if their room is clean but they did not do the dishes, can they play?

If taken in a proper English language format, yes.

That is unless they just do their homework then get a lawyer to get them out of the rest.

 

[Lammo]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Lammo wrote:

I want it to read OR but I know that there are LEOs and prosecutors out there who can and will read it as AND and who are hostile to RKBA. You'd think I was questioning the Catholicity of the Pope (which, as a 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus, I would never do). Anyway, this is far from nonsense but I'm done.

Well, according to some LEO's and prosecutors out there, openly carrying a firearm in a holster violates 9.41.270! So what's your point?!?

The CURRENT statute reads what it reads, plain and simple, and plain and simple (i), (ii), (iii) are all separated by the word "OR" until someone changes the BASIC rules of grammar for the American dialect of the English language.

Never mind.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

besides the "or, or" or the "and, or" querry.
you look at legislative intent.
the RCW describes two ways to get a gun into your car! and
it describes two ways that you can be in the car with that gun!
seems weve got grammer on our side, and weve got intent on our side, and the ?finding for conviction? jury instruction? elements of the crime? on our side, and nobody has ever been convicted of the crime as far as we know!

ding ding ding i think this ones a winner :celebrate:celebrate :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate

fake edit to add.....nener nener nener!

 

[heresolong]

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Computer engineer with a knack for grammar Naziesque behavior.

im shocked that "you" would come out with that!
its just fine with me that youre sure of your interpretation of that RCW.:cuss:
you can be rude on the forum,, but that was just really ruuuude!!:cuss:

I think he was referring to himself which means it would be a joke, rather than really rude.

Hopefully this thread isn't devolving into insults now that the interesting discussion is winding down. Sure way to lose members.

Lammo, stick around!

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

Lammo, stick around!

I'll second that.

Lammo, you are a tremendous asset to this forum. We need your expert legal opinion on many issues.The members heremay notalways agree onevery topic, but as a lawyer, I'm sure your skin is thick enough to fend off an occasional barb.

 

[Lammo]

imported post

Oh, I'm not going anywhere. I was just trying to be done with this topic. Obviously it didn't work. Moth meet flame.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

IMHO, most if not all people, when trying to read and understand any type of law or regulation, will tend to interpret it to their benefit. Attorney types for the most part try to interpret it to the benefit of their client. Prosecutors for the most part interpret the law to benefit their case.

It is my firm beliefe that Lammo, was not trying to say that the authority he quoted was the current authority, just the only one he could find. Also that a different prosecutor or LEO with a chip on their shoulder could try to use that old authorit to prosecute.

I would suggest that one try to read for content and not for personal fit to my circumstance. It makes things a little more clear at timmes. Also can muddy up the water. I have said before and will say again, one of my law Prof told me "there is only one thing positive in law, and that is...NOTHING is positive in law.



Thanks to Lammo and Olypendrew.