Duty to Inform?

[sudden valley gunner]

Some of you guys are working on different levels here. Remember.... RAS, PC, and then beyond reasonable doubt...

PC she has the pistol in the car. Go to court introduce its not hers it hers husband's he put it there... Then no beyond reasonable doubt dismissed/not guilty etc.etc.

Add: I would submit that if the gun was locked out of her reach then she never had possession. It was being stored in said vehicle. But that's just my take.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You were asked a direct question by Jeff. Let's hear you say it.

What is your RS or PC.

Now keep in mind RS is a watering down of the constitutions probable cause clause. And that most PC by most cops is watered down and unconstitutional.

Also you cannot tell by mere glance whether or not anyone is "licensed" to carry how they carry so demanding to see papers isn't necessarily lawful.

 

[Primus]

I get what you aresaying I really do, but none the less there are lawful ways that firearm could have been there. There is no maybe in

(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 the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle and she was not carrying it how can he develop PC or RAS that she was committing a crime. The law is clear she was not carrying the firearm and he did not see her place it in the car. You and several others seem to hung up on a loaded firearm in the car that in its self is not unlawful unless she placed it there or was carrying it.

The charge has to be carrying a loaded weapon in the car or placing it there since the Cop did not see her place it there asnd she waas not carrying the loaded forearm no crime occurred, how can he in good conscious effect an arrest? All of this is assuming the woman does not admit to placing the loaded forearm in the car or in some other way say something that gives the Cop PC or RAS for the arrest. The mere presence of the loaded firearm is not unlawful in and of its self.

A person shall not CARRY OR PLACE......

Shes carrying the gun....

Carry gun in vehicle... No license.... Illegal....

Make sense?

So... Is the loaded gun in the vehicle?..... Check.

Does she have license?......no..... Check.

Illegal.

So PC..... She opens box.. Ta da gun in plain sight. Hey lady give me that gun... Sees its loaded.... Hey lady do u have CPL? No..... Ok.... A reasonable person can believe we have a person with no CPL and a loaded gun....

Any questions?

Like I said navylcdr already covered this pretty well.

Now wait for it... SHOULD the guy arrest or cite her? IMHO no. But he certainly can.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Jeff Hayes]

A person shall not CARRY OR PLACE......

Shes carrying the gun....

Carry gun in vehicle... No license.... Illegal....

Make sense?

So... Is the loaded gun in the vehicle?..... Check.

Does she have license?......no..... Check.

Illegal.

So PC..... She opens box.. Ta da gun in plain sight. Hey lady give me that gun... Sees its loaded.... Hey lady do u have CPL? No..... Ok.... A reasonable person can believe we have a person with no CPL and a loaded gun....

Any questions?

Like I said navylcdr already covered this pretty well.

Now wait for it... SHOULD the guy arrest or cite her? IMHO no. But he certainly can.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded pistol in any vehicle then it adds or place in a vehicle. I am reading that to say the person would have to be carrying the firearm on their person. I would be very odd verbiage to say the car was carrying the firearm. If you take out "or place" the law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle and then it adds or place. Since the woman was not carrying the firearm she did not commit the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Since the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle how could he deduce that she placed it in the car? I believe here in Washington the Cop has to actually see a misdemeanor to make an arrest for a misdemeanor absent any other witnesses. It is clear to me that the only two laws that can be broken under (2)(a) is carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle or placing a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is it nothing else is possible under the law. She was not carrying the firearm so that is out so the Cop would have to make the arrest for placing a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Since the Cop did not see the woman place the firearm in the vehicle what PC pr RAS does he have that she placed the firearm in the vehicle. Just because it is there does not rise to the level of PC that she placed the firearm in the vehicle.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I will add can the Cop make the arrest oh hell yes, would he be wrong given the proper reading of the law oh hell yes. Lots of people get arrested, including me, because Cops do not know or understand the law. I wish I had a tape of the judge asking a Cop to explane exactly how I disturbed the peace in a bar with a rock and roll band playing at max volume, that was freaking hilarious.

 

[Grim_Night]

The law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded pistol in any vehicle then it adds or place in a vehicle. I am reading that to say the person would have to be carrying the firearm on their person. I would be very odd verbiage to say the car was carrying the firearm. If you take out "or place" the law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle and then it adds or place. Since the woman was not carrying the firearm she did not commit the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Since the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle how could he deduce that she placed it in the car? I believe here in Washington the Cop has to actually see a misdemeanor to make an arrest for a misdemeanor absent any other witnesses. It is clear to me that the only two laws that can be broken under (2)(a) is carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle or placing a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is it nothing else is possible under the law. She was not carrying the firearm so that is out so the Cop would have to make the arrest for placing a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Since the Cop did not see the woman place the firearm in the vehicle what PC pr RAS does he have that she placed the firearm in the vehicle. Just because it is there does not rise to the level of PC that she placed the firearm in the vehicle.

+1

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1182711.html

 The issue is one of statutory interpretation, and our review is de novo.  State v. Argueta, 107 Wash.App. 532, 536, 27 P.3d 242 (2001).   Courts, when interpreting a statute, should assume the legislature means exactly what it says.   Plain words do not require construction.   The courts do not engage in statutory interpretation of a statute that is not ambiguous.   If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself.  State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1182711.html#sthash.teGNBqdY.dpuf

This case law reference has ticked off more then 1 police officer in the last couple years.

My encounter back in 2012 at the Tacoma mall transit center is a prime example. Officer(s) tried saying that my firearm and ammo could not be stored in the same location and must be separate. Yet state law says otherwise.

RCW 9.41.010 Terms defined.

(12) "Loaded" means:

(a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the firearm;

(b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the firearm;

(c) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the firearm, if the firearm is a revolver;

(d) There is a cartridge in the tube or magazine that is inserted in the action; or

RCW 9.41.060 Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.

(9) Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; or

LEOs tend to totally ignore what the courts have ruled and interpret laws however they see fit, Primus included. But as has been said before... You may beat the rap, but not the ride.

 

[Primus]

The law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded pistol in any vehicle then it adds or place in a vehicle. I am reading that to say the person would have to be carrying the firearm on their person. I would be very odd verbiage to say the car was carrying the firearm. If you take out "or place" the law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle and then it adds or place. Since the woman was not carrying the firearm she did not commit the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Since the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle how could he deduce that she placed it in the car? I believe here in Washington the Cop has to actually see a misdemeanor to make an arrest for a misdemeanor absent any other witnesses. It is clear to me that the only two laws that can be broken under (2)(a) is carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle or placing a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is it nothing else is possible under the law. She was not carrying the firearm so that is out so the Cop would have to make the arrest for placing a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Since the Cop did not see the woman place the firearm in the vehicle what PC pr RAS does he have that she placed the firearm in the vehicle. Just because it is there does not rise to the level of PC that she placed the firearm in the vehicle.

Some states carrying and transporting are the same thing.

I am not from Washington so I'll defer to someone from there. But I can say this... If the gun was loaded and under a seat what would it be?.....carrying.

If its unloaded and in a globe box its..... Storage...


Also if you read the statute it says if loaded then must be on your person. So even if she had a cpl shed be in violation.

I get it... Can a car carry a gun? No. But your in possession of car and the gun. Especially with the facts he gave.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grim_Night]

Also if you read the statute it says if loaded then must be on your person. So even if she had a cpl shed be in violation.

Wrong.

Reread the law.

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

[QUOTE (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.[/QUOTE]

In the example above. If the husband placed the firearm inside the vehicle, and the husband has a CPL, then the husband did it lawfully because he possessed a CPL AND he abided by "(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 husband was away from the vehicle and the firearm was locked within the vehicle and concealed from view. The wife neither carried the firearm nor placed the firearm in the vehicle so the wife cannot be held responsible. Again... Primus = a LEO trying to interpret the law that is plainly written and unambiguous.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Some states carrying and transporting are the same thing.

I am not from Washington so I'll defer to someone from there. But I can say this... If the gun was loaded and under a seat what would it be?.....carrying.

If its unloaded and in a globe box its..... Storage...


Also if you read the statute it says if loaded then must be on your person. So even if she had a cpl shed be in violation.

I get it... Can a car carry a gun? No. But your in possession of car and the gun. Especially with the facts he gave.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yes in some states carrying and transporting would be the same thing, you will get no argument form me on that.

The gun under the seat in Washington would not be carrying per the law.

If you read the statute it clearly says i, ii, iii per the correct legal reading there is an or between i and ii and iii, so no the law does not say the firearm must be on your person and that is backed up by the Attorney General of Washington in a published opinion too lazy to look it up at the moment.

In Washington the firearm could be unloaded and duct taped the the drivers forehead and be lawful.

 

[Primus]

The law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded pistol in any vehicle then it adds or place in a vehicle. I am reading that to say the person would have to be carrying the firearm on their person. I would be very odd verbiage to say the car was carrying the firearm. If you take out "or place" the law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle and then it adds or place. Since the woman was not carrying the firearm she did not commit the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Since the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle how could he deduce that she placed it in the car? I believe here in Washington the Cop has to actually see a misdemeanor to make an arrest for a misdemeanor absent any other witnesses. It is clear to me that the only two laws that can be broken under (2)(a) is carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle or placing a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is it nothing else is possible under the law. She was not carrying the firearm so that is out so the Cop would have to make the arrest for placing a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Since the Cop did not see the woman place the firearm in the vehicle what PC pr RAS does he have that she placed the firearm in the vehicle. Just because it is there does not rise to the level of PC that she placed the firearm in the vehicle.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Carrying-Concealed-Weapon.htm

Carried
A carried weapon is one that moves with you, or one you have in your possession. Having a knife hidden in a pocket, for example, constitutes carrying a weapon because whenever you move, the weapon moves with you. However, actually moving is not required. You can, for example, carry a weapon if you have it in your pocket while you are asleep. Also, you can carry a weapon if it is not physically in your possession, but merely within easy reach or control. For example, you can carry a weapon if you have it hidden under your seat while driving a car or otherwise have it available for immediate use.

Focus on the last two lines...... CARRY A WEAPON EVEN IF NOT IN YOUR POSSESSION..... That's what I'm referring to. So unless someone has some case law that says "carry equals in your pocket or on your hip"......

Even better... when she opens glove box the pistol is now clearly in her possession. So THEN shed be in violation. And again..... gun needs to be unloaded even if she had a CPL so shes violating that in his presence....

 

[Primus]

Yes in some states carrying and transporting would be the same thing, you will get no argument form me on that.

The gun under the seat in Washington would not be carrying per the law.

If you read the statute it clearly says i, ii, iii per the correct legal reading there is an or between i and ii and iii, so no the law does not say the firearm must be on your person and that is backed up by the Attorney General of Washington in a published opinion too lazy to look it up at the moment.

In Washington the firearm could be unloaded and duct taped the the drivers forehead and be lawful.

Agreed then..... Except he was saying the gun would be loaded.... Which would be a no go if I understand Washington law correctly.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Wrong.

Reread the law.

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

[QUOTE (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.

In the example above. If the husband placed the firearm inside the vehicle, and the husband has a CPL, then the husband did it lawfully because he possessed a CPL AND he abided by "(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 husband was away from the vehicle and the firearm was locked within the vehicle and concealed from view. The wife neither carried the firearm nor placed the firearm in the vehicle so the wife cannot be held responsible. Again... Primus = a LEO trying to interpret the law that is plainly written and unambiguous.[/QUOTE]

I sincerely doubt anyone can carry a loaded gun in a car and use "oh the licensed person left it in the car" defense....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Jeff Hayes]

+1

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1182711.html


My encounter back in 2012 at the Tacoma mall transit center is a prime example. Officer(s) tried saying that my firearm and ammo could not be stored in the same location and must be separate. Yet state law says otherwise.

Making it up as the go.





LEOs tend to totally ignore what the courts have ruled and interpret laws however they see fit, Primus included. But as has been said before... You may beat the rap, but not the ride.

I have made the ride several times and beat the rap every time. I might add that I have never been arrested for breaking a valid law only for breaking the law that was in the officers mind. The mistake that Cops make is when they do this to a half way intelligent person they make that person think.

 

[Grim_Night]

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Carrying-Concealed-Weapon.htm

Your reference is from lawyers not from a court. Reread my post which quotes the opinion of the COURTS.

 

[()pen(arry]

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Carrying-Concealed-Weapon.htm

That's rich.

 

[Primus]

Your reference is from lawyers not from a court. Reread my post which quotes the opinion of the COURTS.

Ok can you show me case law that says a person can have a loaded gun in the glove box as long as they didn't put it there?

I've already said prior I'd defer to someone from the state who has the case law to back it up.

No not case law about terms.... Actual case law about loaded guns in unlocked glove boxes in cars being driven by people withoit a cpl....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grim_Night]

Ok can you show me case law that says a person can have a loaded gun in the glove box as long as they didn't put it there?

I've already said prior I'd defer to someone from the state who has the case law to back it up.

No not case law about terms.... Actual case law about loaded guns in unlocked glove boxes in cars being driven by people withoit a cpl....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I already gave a valid case law cite. Just because it does not specifically mention what you are talking about does not make it invalid. My biggest problem is the fact that you not being a Washington state resident are making posts in a Washington state subforum trying to impose your understanding of the laws outside of Washington state. I'll say this once and not as a personal attack... Unless you know Washington state law and have experience dealing with Washington state law, please keep your "expertise" to yourself.

 

[Primus]

I already gave a valid case law cite. Just because it does not specifically mention what you are talking about does not make it invalid. My biggest problem is the fact that you not being a Washington state resident are making posts in a Washington state subforum trying to impose your understanding of the laws outside of Washington state. I'll say this once and not as a personal attack... Unless you know Washington state law and have experience dealing with Washington state law, please keep your "expertise" to yourself.

I have no "expertise" in you law. Your still avoiding the fact the gun would be loaded.... But ok I get it.

This is where guys feelings get hurt and get personal.

Your "cite" was saying that "carry" means physically carry because the courts use the literally definition of words.

So be it...apparently u think it would be legal to have a loaded gun in the glove box without a cpl... Sounds like bad advice if I heard it. I'll defer to others to hopefully correct you.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grim_Night]

Your still avoiding the fact the gun would be loaded....

nope, didn't avoid it at all. I quoted the LAW and court opinion that says "READ THE LAW"

Your "cite" was saying that "carry" means physically carry because the courts use the literally definition of words.

So be it...apparently u think it would be legal to have a loaded gun in the glove box without a cpl... Sounds like bad advice if I heard it. I'll defer to others to hopefully correct you.

I can count at least 4 people in the last 30 or so posts that do agree with me and one of them is a lawyer.

 

[Primus]

Yes in some states carrying and transporting would be the same thing, you will get no argument form me on that.

The gun under the seat in Washington would not be carrying per the law.

If you read the statute it clearly says i, ii, iii per the correct legal reading there is an or between i and ii and iii, so no the law does not say the firearm must be on your person and that is backed up by the Attorney General of Washington in a published opinion too lazy to look it up at the moment.

In Washington the firearm could be unloaded and duct taped the the drivers forehead and be lawful.

I missed the "gun under the seat would not be in violation".

Does that include loaded firearms also?

If so then I stand corrected on my interpretation of said law.

But I'm confused because you then say that NO it doesnt have to be in your possession to he carrying and that the attorney general has backed that up.

Hence my confusion on this now.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grim_Night]

If so then I stand corrected on my interpretation of said law.

THAT is the problem, it is YOUR interpretation. NOT the interpretation of the COURT.