|
|
|
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:41 am
|
Forum rules
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
Question on rules for pistols in vehicle
Author |
Message |
TwinPop
Site Supporter
Location: Renton Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 Posts: 76
Real Name: Lowell
|
Base assumption is that driver has CPL. Here is the question:
Is it permissible to have a loaded pistol in the glove box within reach of the driver? Does it make a difference if the glove box is locked?
_________________ "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:05 am |
|
|
cmica
Site Supporter
Location: I-5 /512 Joined: Thu Dec 8, 2011 Posts: 15235
Real Name: chris
|
_________________
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:16 am |
|
|
Lew
Site Supporter
Location: Earth Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 Posts: 1188
Real Name: Lewy the Deplorable
|
While recently perusing goodies in my local gun shop, conversation came up concerning this. I asked a question to the long time gun shop owner about the legalities of a CPL holder transporting a loaded pistol in a vehicle while it was locked in a safe (lock box). He said it was illegal. There happened to be a King County Sheriff in the shop that interjected, "it all depends on the circumstance as to why we would be questioning it. Huh? So I plainly asked him "is it legal", the answer given to me was, no. I honestly think neither one really knew the correct interpretation of the law. Because of this, I have since decided to carry it in the lock box unloaded with the loaded magazine in the box next to the pistol....just to cover my ass from someone's "interpretation" of the law. Gun laws have gotten so convoluted that it seems even law enforcement don't know how to interpret them.
_________________ NRA life member
Μολὼν λαβέ
I would like to apologize to anyone I have not yet offended. Please be patient. I will get to you shortly. Also, please forgive my spelling or grammatical errors. If my post doesn't make sense or is not amusing, it's technology's fault and most certainly not operator ɹoɹɹǝ. Thank You
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:54 am |
|
|
MadPick
Site Admin
Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52068
Real Name: Steve
|
Well, here's 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. Assuming that the CPL holder ("licensee") is in the vehicle, I don't see any restrictions on where in the vehicle the pistol can be or whether it's locked up.
_________________SteveBenefactor Life Member, National Rifle AssociationLife Member, Second Amendment FoundationPatriot & Life Member, Gun Owners of AmericaLife Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear ArmsLegal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy CoalitionMember, NAGR/NFGRPlease support the organizations that support all of us.Leave it cleaner than you found it.
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:00 am |
|
|
UpDog
Site Supporter
Location: Burien Joined: Wed Oct 5, 2011 Posts: 3308
|
MadPick wrote: Well, here's 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. Assuming that the CPL holder ("licensee") is in the vehicle, I don't see any restrictions on where in the vehicle the pistol can be or whether it's locked up. I disagree. Notice (i) and (ii) are not separated by an "or" as shown with (iii) in that RCW which gives the option vehicle storing while 'away from the vehicle". It's clear as day.
_________________ Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:05 am |
|
|
dagamore
Location: Ft Benning Ga Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 Posts: 501
|
UpDog wrote: MadPick wrote: Well, here's 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. Assuming that the CPL holder ("licensee") is in the vehicle, I don't see any restrictions on where in the vehicle the pistol can be or whether it's locked up. I disagree. Notice (i) and (ii) are not separated by an "or" as shown with (iii) in that RCW which gives the option vehicle storing while 'away from the vehicle". It's clear as day. right thats how I read it as well, rcw reads that it has to be on the person when they are in the car, for the pistol to be loaded, and if they are not it has to be locked up and out of site(think safe storage type thing).
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:11 am |
|
|
Lew
Site Supporter
Location: Earth Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 Posts: 1188
Real Name: Lewy the Deplorable
|
_________________ NRA life member
Μολὼν λαβέ
I would like to apologize to anyone I have not yet offended. Please be patient. I will get to you shortly. Also, please forgive my spelling or grammatical errors. If my post doesn't make sense or is not amusing, it's technology's fault and most certainly not operator ɹoɹɹǝ. Thank You
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:16 am |
|
|
MadPick
Site Admin
Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52068
Real Name: Steve
|
Well, I *think* that you guys are misinterpreting it. However, I'm not 100% sure of this. When the law says, "X, Y or Z" then I think that's equivalent to "X or Y or Z," not "X and Y or Z." "You must buy Winchester, Remington, or Mossberg" means you need to buy any one of those. "You must buy Winchester, Remington, and Mossberg" means you need to buy all three. Check out this web page: http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents ... nStyle.pdfThe second paragraph from the top caught my eye: Code: (i) In a series of three or more words or phrases, a comma is used after each item except the last, as in "officers, deputies, and employees." This rule applies to both conjunctive, "and," and disjunctive, "or," series. The phrases "conjunctive series" and "disjunctive series" got me thinking.
_________________SteveBenefactor Life Member, National Rifle AssociationLife Member, Second Amendment FoundationPatriot & Life Member, Gun Owners of AmericaLife Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear ArmsLegal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy CoalitionMember, NAGR/NFGRPlease support the organizations that support all of us.Leave it cleaner than you found it.
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:18 am |
|
|
DocNugent
In Memoriam
Location: South King County, WA Joined: Thu Dec 8, 2011 Posts: 5846
|
MadPick wrote: Well, I *think* that you guys are misinterpreting it. However, I'm not 100% sure of this. When the law says, "X, Y or Z" then I think that's equivalent to "X or Y or Z," not "X and Y or Z." "You must buy Winchester, Remington, or Mossberg" means you need to buy any one of those. "You must buy Winchester, Remington, and Mossberg" means you need to buy all three. Check out this web page: http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents ... nStyle.pdf . . . . Yup, Code Revisor rulz.
_________________M D "Doc" Nugent NRA RSO
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:36 am |
|
|
dagamore
Location: Ft Benning Ga Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 Posts: 501
|
MadPick wrote: Well, I *think* that you guys are misinterpreting it. However, I'm not 100% sure of this.
When the law says, "X, Y or Z" then I think that's equivalent to "X or Y or Z," not "X and Y or Z."
Too bad that courts have upheld it to mean the following, X and Y or only Z, not any of the three but the first two or the third with out either of the first two being applicable.
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:40 am |
|
|
TwinPop
Site Supporter
Location: Renton Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 Posts: 76
Real Name: Lowell
|
I appreciate the varying viewpoints. Lew's point about varying interpretations is frightening and unfortunately a reality. Whether it is a LEO or prosecutor with a burr under their saddle an otherwise upstanding citizen could get taken down. How sad that more resources and punishment are likely to be thrown at this upstanding citizen based on interpretation than the punk stealing cars or breaking into homes (no interpretation necessary... unless it is Spanish or smack from the hood dialect).
_________________ "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:49 am |
|
|
CurtisLemansky
Site Supporter
Location: Snohomish County Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 Posts: 2300
|
dagamore wrote: MadPick wrote: Well, I *think* that you guys are misinterpreting it. However, I'm not 100% sure of this.
When the law says, "X, Y or Z" then I think that's equivalent to "X or Y or Z," not "X and Y or Z."
Too bad that courts have upheld it to mean the following, X and Y or only Z, not any of the three but the first two or the third with out either of the first two being applicable. What court cases have upheld that interpretation? Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
_________________ “I'm cracking eggs of wisdom!”
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:03 pm |
|
|
CurtisLemansky
Site Supporter
Location: Snohomish County Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 Posts: 2300
|
UpDog wrote: MadPick wrote: Well, here's 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. Assuming that the CPL holder ("licensee") is in the vehicle, I don't see any restrictions on where in the vehicle the pistol can be or whether it's locked up. I disagree. Notice (i) and (ii) are not separated by an "or" as shown with (iii) in that RCW which gives the option vehicle storing while 'away from the vehicle". It's clear as day. If that interpretation were true, then (ii) is redundant because either the licensee is carrying the loaded pistol on their person in the vehicle or it's locked up while they're away. There would be no reason to define that the licensee should remain in the vehicle while it's there. Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
_________________ “I'm cracking eggs of wisdom!”
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:12 pm |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
Agree with Steve.
Yes, as long as you are within the vehicle (ii) it can be loaded and stored anywhere in the vehicle.
Although I wonder if it was on the person who did not have a CPL, but was in the vehicle...
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:45 pm |
|
|
Normanator
Site Supporter
Location: Shelton, WA Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 Posts: 1141
Real Name: Norm
|
I have been stopped multiples times across the state for varying reasons (including speeding, lights being out, and at DUI checks as well as had officers at my window directing traffic during road closures and at accidents- so various moods of the officers, city, county, and state) and there has been a pistol holstered (and twice not- but it was not loaded and in back) sitting on my passenger seat in plain sight. Every time I was asked if it was loaded and could I show my CPL. Not once did I ever have any further issue, nor did any officer tell me it was illegal- they only asked that I not reach for it, and one asked it I would place it on the passenger floor until he was done.
Granted this does not mean it is not illegal, but I can think of 6 times it has happened with 6 different officers, so I figure if there was any concern with illegality it would have come up, especially when getting a ticket for something already. Also- it if far easier to just have the pistol holstered, but sometimes it is less comfortable on long drives across the state, or while hunting when my sidearm is a 8" revolver.
|
Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|