Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:21 pm
CommTillItHtz wrote:...if a LEO asks for you document and you refuse.
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:56 pm
Massivedesign wrote:CommTillItHtz wrote:...if a LEO asks for you document and you refuse.
This here is the root of the discussion...
Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:32 pm
Massivedesign wrote:CommTillItHtz wrote:...if a LEO asks for you document and you refuse.
This here is the root of the discussion. Since you are a LEO, does a person at a range shooting an SBR constitute RAS for you to investigate if it is illegal? If the person just doesn't have paperwork on them, what's the SOP? Are you able/willing to detain a person with an SBR just because a person has an SBR to investigate if it's a legal SBR?
How is this any different than a person who refuses to identify during an FI? Yes, in most cases you need to identify yourself to the LEO, but you are in no obligation to provide ID. Like if a person is walking down the street OC'ing. Sure, you'll get a MWAG call, and some departments will respond and make contact... but in reality, in WA, there is no requirement for the person to ID themselves.
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:17 pm
CommTillItHtz wrote:Bottom line, I think LC has the right read on the RCW. LE can ask, you don't have to provide, but they could have the legal authority to detain and seized items depending on the situation.
Again, not a lawyer, just a schmuck who tries his best.
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:39 pm
[/quote]CommTillItHtz wrote:...if one is at can he demand your papers? Sure, they are just words. Do you have to provide them? No. Can you be detained if said officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, deems there is reasonable suspicion? Yep. Might your firearm be seized and you placed in handcuffs? Yep. And, if, though investigation, having been done because the possessor didn't want to show paperwork which apparently they had, it is determined that the possessor legally possessed the firearm, would one be successful in a civil lawsuit? Likely not....
Bottom line, I think LC has the right read on the RCW. LE can ask, you don't have to provide, but they could have the legal authority to detain and seized items depending on the situation.
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 pm
Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:58 am
Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:52 am
Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:09 am
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:44 am
Guns4Liberty wrote:Of course LE is going to argue that LE has legitimate RAS just at the mere sighting of what they believe is a firearm in a highly controlled class of weapons. Why would they voluntarily limit their own power? But that is EXACTLY what this thread is about...what, exactly, grants LE (and which departments/levels) the ability to detain until stamps and paperwork are produced? No offense to the LE members on this board (in fact, I found your contributions insightful, so thank you for that and for your service), but the fact that LE says mere possession is RAS to detain and investigate (demand to see stamps) is not good enough for me. I am still holding out for something more official.
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:47 am
MadPick wrote:I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.
Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?
I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:59 am
lamrith wrote:MadPick wrote:I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.
Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?
I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.
I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.
- Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
- The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
- SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.
POWDERED and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.
Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:22 am
Kgbsucka wrote:lamrith wrote:MadPick wrote:I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.
Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?
I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.
I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.
- Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
- The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
- SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.
POWDERED and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.
The part that I still get hung up on is that the RCWs basically contradict one another.
"These are illegal"
then
"These are legal IF you follow federal law"
So does Federal Law state that I must present the tax stamp to anyone/local LEO/RSO or does it not? I would argue that it doesn't, so I can still be in compliance with Federal Law without sharing my paperwork with local LEO. At that point, what reasonable suspicion is there? How is that any different than saying "he was driving a car, so I pulled him over to see if he had a driver's license, and he refused to show it" or "MWG Call - the person was open carrying. Stopped to ask for ID, MWG refused to provide ID" The MWG would be free to go. LEO can't detain him at that point to make sure it isn't stolen, he isn't a felon etc.
If I am in compliance with Federal Law there is no PC. Federal Law does not say I can't possess my suppressor in WA state and WA state law explicitly says I can if I follow Federal Law.
Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:34 am
leadcounsel wrote:Kgbsucka wrote:lamrith wrote:MadPick wrote:I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.
Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?
I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.
I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.
- Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
- The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
- SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.
POWDERED and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.
The part that I still get hung up on is that the RCWs basically contradict one another.
"These are illegal"
then
"These are legal IF you follow federal law"
So does Federal Law state that I must present the tax stamp to anyone/local LEO/RSO or does it not? I would argue that it doesn't, so I can still be in compliance with Federal Law without sharing my paperwork with local LEO. At that point, what reasonable suspicion is there? How is that any different than saying "he was driving a car, so I pulled him over to see if he had a driver's license, and he refused to show it" or "MWG Call - the person was open carrying. Stopped to ask for ID, MWG refused to provide ID" The MWG would be free to go. LEO can't detain him at that point to make sure it isn't stolen, he isn't a felon etc.
If I am in compliance with Federal Law there is no PC. Federal Law does not say I can't possess my suppressor in WA state and WA state law explicitly says I can if I follow Federal Law.
It's evident you're not understanding because your analogy is wrong. There's nothing inherently illegal about driving a car so such a stop would be wrong.
A better analogy is that if Washington had a law that quad cab pickups were illegal, unless you have special permission. A cop seeing a quad cab would immediately have RAS or PC of illegal behavior and justified stopping to ask. At that point, the driver either has permission or not.
Taking this one step further, we haven't talked at all about "plain view" versus "search." These do not appear to grant blanket searches (i.e. no house-to-house, no opening containers like gun bags, etc.). They appear to occur once the items are in plain view. For instance, you are using it at the range, and LEO sees it or someone else does and reports it. Plain view.
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:34 am