Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/27/2005 12:53:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/27/2005 12:59:07 AM EDT by SKSGuy]
Tonight I got pulled over in south Thurston County by two unmarked WSP patrol vehicles (in the same incident)


The story goes like so:
TIME: 0045 hrs
I had just finished tuning the old VW for the WaterWagens show at Pacific Raceways and was taking the car for a grocery run.
I was exiting off of southbound I-5 doing 40mph thereabouts into Tumwater heading westbound toward Black Lake. Unbeknownst to me there were two unmarked patrol cars at the gas station in the Fred Meyer parking lot just as I exited the freeway. I had to make a stop at the first and only light between Black lake and Tumwater. I see a car roaring up behind me; just as the light turns green I head off. BHAM. They light me up and I pull over into the IGA (I think it's an IGA) parking lot across from Albertsons

*Police officer approaches*
Woman officer: "Good evening sir"
Me: "Before this goes any further I'm going to let you know I have a loaded firearm in the vehicle, however I do have a Concealed Pistol License on me"
Woman officer: "Alright."
Me: "I'm going to take my wallet out of my front pocket now"
Woman officer: "Where is the weapon (I point)"
Me: *hands woman officer CPL & license*
Woman officer: "Please step out of the vehicle"
Me: "No problem"
Woman officer then waits for her partner (in other vehicle to approach)
Woman officer to Male officer: "He has a loaded firearm in the vehicle"
The male officer then proceeds to escort me back a few feet from the woman officer and I interrupt them.
Me (announcing):"PLEASE BE AWARE THAT IF YOU INTEND TO UNHOLSTER THAT WEAPON IT IS LOADED WITH A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER, IT IS ALSO A GLOCK SO IT DOES NOT HAVE A CONVENTIONAL SAFETY MECHANISM"
Woman officer: "huh, not very concealed" (pulling the weapon out of the kydex holster)
Me: "I have a copy of the RCW that states that rig is legal in my car too if you'd like to see that"
The male officer smiles and says: "nah, that won't be necessary"

At this point to my surprise neither of them seemed at ALL concerned that I was carrying it loaded.
In fact, the male officer asked me why I felt I needed a gun "Do you feel like someone is after you?"
And I simply responded with "no, I am just exercising my 2nd amendment rights"
The male officer actually laughed out loud as did the female officer.

They proceeded to ask me the typical questions, at this point I sense no animosity at all. Not the "alright, this is gonna be a felony stop, spread 'em scum bag" you might expect.

They asked me why I felt it was necessary to exit the freeway at such a high rate of speed and I simply told them the truth, that I had just finished tuning the car and I wanted to see how she handled. I then proceeded to explain that I fully expected a ticket and would not argue with them at all as I was breaking the law.
Again, they both laughed

The female officer inspected the gun, presumably for scratched off serials or something tell-tale and then laid it back down on my dashboard.

The male officer starts asking me questions like "what do you do for a living?" And I tell him that I make performance parts for older Volkswagens. The officer insults me (in good fun) saying "well God, I hope this isn't your show car"
Me: "well the exterior isn't what matters, it's whats under the hood"
Male officer: "21 you said? yeah...you're definitely at that stage..." (chuckles) "I really like that touch with the crooked muffler in the back there"
Me: "It's a sport exhaust, thank you. And I didn't put it in there"
(both officers laugh)

"In all seriousness though" the male officer goes on to say, "we could easily write you a hefty reckless driving ticket but because you were honest and forthright it is your lucky night. We EXPECT never to see you again."

They laughed. We all rejoiced and went on our separate ways. No ticket...No nothin' just a bunch of laughs. I consider myself (as far as the ticket goes for reckless) very lucky

If either of you are reading this, I want thank you.

Picture of the rig:



So not to rub it in any of your guys' faces but.... HA!
I told you it was LEGAL

Anyway, I love you all. I'm going to bed now.
Goodnight

-Rob
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 2:24:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/27/2005 2:25:36 AM EDT by CavVet]

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:
So not to rub it in any of your guys' faces but.... HA!
I told you it was LEGAL





Not being charged with a crime is no proof of legality, its just not beiing charged with a crime.


You got your gun handled, out of your control, and took the risk of having it confiscated with little recourse.

I dont think I replied in your other thread, but I will say I should hope this incident demonstrates to you why your carry weapons should be on your person and not on your dashboard. If not, good luck.

Link Posted: 7/27/2005 5:33:02 AM EDT
I personally keep my gun on my person in a shoulder rig or concealed in the consule next to me.
I also do not volunteer any information to the cops. I'll answer their questions but I won't volunteer any info about the status of me being armed. It's none of their damned business! The law states (RCW 9.41) that a person who is legally carrying a concealed weapon must show his concealed carry permit to the officer "On Demand". There is nothing in the RCW that states that you should give them your gun or even tell them you are armed. If they ask then I will tell them but I won't volunteer that information.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 6:49:09 AM EDT
Sounds like the officers were good people to me, it was good of them not to hastle you about it. Law or no law they very well could have given you a hard time but regardless I still like the setup.

I think a lot of this really depends on the Officer to be honest. The law may say one thing but it's who is on the other side of the badge interpreting it that can make all the difference in my observance.

Oh I just noticed something in that pic, it looks just like my VW back when I had one with the extra screws laying around.

Link Posted: 7/27/2005 8:16:36 AM EDT
Glad things went well for you.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 8:17:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/27/2005 8:26:05 AM EDT by R-32]

Originally Posted By CavVet:


Not being charged with a crime is no proof of legality, its just not beiing charged with a crime.


You got your gun handled, out of your control, and took the risk of having it confiscated with little recourse.

I dont think I replied in your other thread, but I will say I should hope this incident demonstrates to you why your carry weapons should be on your person and not on your dashboard. If not, good luck.




I have to agree 100% with CavVet....

I also think what you are doing is very Wreckless and Stupid..

But no one better to quote than the officer in your own story.



Male officer: "21 you said? yeah...you're definitely at that stage..."



Nothing bad on you as a person, I just think your judgement has a flaw...


BTW: When a officer says they expect to never see you again, It is most often because they think you are a Nutcase, and are mocking you, If you were normal, they would not care if they see you around, or not.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 8:33:50 AM EDT
The officers actually said "we know it's legal"

But whatever. Say whatever you want.

There is always someone out there that is going to disagree.

You don't matter, my brush with the law and how I handle the situation matters.

-Rob
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 8:44:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:

You don't matter, my brush with the law and how I handle the situation matters.

-Rob




Does this not sound like a classic quote from FF?


BTW: Your mark'd now, anytime a cop see's you, they are going to think " Hey officer whatzherface told us about the guy with the VW, so damn paranoid he has a glock screw'd into his dash"...

What you are doing MAY be legal..( I dont give a damn what your idea of what the RCW says, unless it says in nice bold lettering.."IT IS LEGAL FOR SKSGUY TO HAVE A KYDEX SCREWED TO HIS DASH" it is always open to what the Officer/Judge think)
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 9:05:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By R-32:

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:

You don't matter, my brush with the law and how I handle the situation matters.

-Rob




Does this not sound like a classic quote from FF?


BTW: Your mark'd now, anytime a cop see's you, they are going to think " Hey officer whatzherface told us about the guy with the VW, so damn paranoid he has a glock screw'd into his dash"...

What you are doing MAY be legal..( I dont give a damn what your idea of what the RCW says, unless it says in nice bold lettering.."IT IS LEGAL FOR SKSGUY TO HAVE A KYDEX SCREWED TO HIS DASH" it is always open to what the Officer/Judge think)




FINALLY, someone with a sense of humor.

Link Posted: 7/27/2005 9:08:17 AM EDT
It does not look like that Glock is concealed to me.



BTW: When a officer says they expect to never see you again, It is most often because they think you are a Nutcase, and are mocking you, If you were normal, they would not care if they see you around, or not.



OUTCH.....

Link Posted: 7/27/2005 9:38:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/27/2005 9:39:02 AM EDT by 2whiskeyP]
You should have drawn down on them. Unmarked cars? They could have been bad guys out to jack you.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 10:45:47 AM EDT
I think it's awesome. Not something I would do though. I think the appearance of his car is a better deterent to carjacking than the Glock.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 10:50:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HighCaliber:
I think it's awesome. Not something I would do though. I think the appearance of the guy in the car is a better deterent to carjacking than the Glock.



Fixed it.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 2:06:19 PM EDT
Please tell me how that is considered a "concealed" weapon.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 2:13:15 PM EDT
It doesn't have to be in a car (with CPL). Read the law.

Link Posted: 7/27/2005 4:58:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:
The officers actually said "we know it's legal"

But whatever. Say whatever you want.

There is always someone out there that is going to disagree.

You don't matter, my brush with the law and how I handle the situation matters.

-Rob



You are all inconsequential! Me too now that I am replying.

I hear so many stories of guys getting a break because they fess up to Stadank they have iron at their disposal. I'd like to get a break too, but not at the potential expense of having my weapon confiscated and getting hastled. Don't ask, don't tell.
Link Posted: 7/27/2005 11:27:26 PM EDT


You don't matter, my brush with the law and how I handle the situation matters.



On the contary. This forum, being roughly commensurate with the counsel of your peers, tends to think otherwise, ergo, DAMN SURE, WE DO MATTER. But nevermind that.....let's examine your logic-

If a minor traffic stop with some Staters is going to be the basis of your legal defense in the future, try picturing yourself in court answering the following:

"So, you mean to tell me that since two WSP Officers said it was OK, you took that as legal counsel?"
"What were their names?"
"Specifically, what RCW did THEY cite as being the basis of the legality for you actions?"

Ect,
ect,
ect.

Link Posted: 7/28/2005 8:16:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt45:

You don't matter, my brush with the law and how I handle the situation matters.



On the contary. This forum, being roughly commensurate with the counsel of your peers, tends to think otherwise, ergo, DAMN SURE, WE DO MATTER. But nevermind that.....let's examine your logic-

If a minor traffic stop with some Staters is going to be the basis of your legal defense in the future, try picturing yourself in court answering the following:

"So, you mean to tell me that since two WSP Officers said it was OK, you took that as legal counsel?"
"What were their names?"
"Specifically, what RCW did THEY cite as being the basis of the legality for you actions?"

Ect,
ect,
ect.



You know what I love about this forum is that so many people think they know it all. Most of you are very cool, respectable, people for with whom I would very much like to get to know, face to face.

Then there are the assholes that think, because they own a few firearms, have some years on me, and haven't had any trouble with the law, they are omniscient. I understand in this political climate it is wise to use some common sense and to exercise some extra precautions so as not to anger big brother. HOWEVER, I read the law and I consult with law enforcement to make sure that what I do is copasetic and that in the event something I do ever DOES cause me to go to court, I have a damn good defense. I doubt most of my sarcastic, rude, and belittling compatriots here on the forum do that. What they have a tendency to do is assume, again, they are all knowing and immediately pass judgment on the character of a person based on one action. If you don't agree with me, you tell me I'm ignorant. At which point anything said thereafter should not be deemed worthy of actual consideration. Well years or not, in the case of this holster, I am fully within my right to continue on continuing on. I don't usually bring up the legality of things here because it's wasted energy spent on amateur law experts here that really don't know…anything. So on that note, all of you sarcastic bastards need to shut your mouths and actually read the law, actually talk with law enforcement, actually WRITE to the state attorney and the BATFE.

Oh and another thing, I was relating my experiences to people thinking about growing some and installing a car holster.


I'm done wasting my energy.

No hard feelings though. I'll just go on about my business as I'm sure you all will

-Rob
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 10:14:05 PM EDT
OK so some of us are smart asses. But if you look, there will be a lot of truth to be had here from your internet friends. We had rather see you and every one else here stay out of trouble then ask for it. If you would soften up a little the guys here on this board will try to stear you right. It can be tuff being young, but as you grow older hind sight will be 20-20. Latter in life you will ask yourself was I really that dumb. I know I do, and can honestly say I did some stupid shit form the time I was 18 till..... "I don't want to remember that date.

To cover my ass, On the other hand maybe not...... Just a guess on my part.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 3:46:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:0
You know what I love about this forum is that so many people think they know it all.




I think there are a 1/2 dozen responders to this thread thinking the same exact thing.




Then there are the assholes that think, because they own a few firearms, have some years on me, and haven't had any trouble with the law, they are omniscient. I understand in this political climate it is wise to use some common sense and to exercise some extra precautions so as not to anger big brother. HOWEVER, I read the law and I consult with law enforcement to make sure that what I do is copasetic and that in the event something I do ever DOES cause me to go to court, I have a damn good defense. I doubt most of my sarcastic, rude, and belittling compatriots here on the forum do that. What they have a tendency to do is assume, again, they are all knowing and immediately pass judgment on the character of a person based on one action. If you don't agree with me, you tell me I'm ignorant. At which point anything said thereafter should not be deemed worthy of actual consideration. Well years or not, in the case of this holster, I am fully within my right to continue on continuing on. I don't usually bring up the legality of things here because it's wasted energy spent on amateur law experts here that really don't know…anything. So on that note, all of you sarcastic bastards need to shut your mouths and actually read the law, actually talk with law enforcement, actually WRITE to the state attorney and the BATFE.


One more thing, should you ever happened to be accused of a crime, you will be judged by a jury of your peers. Now if your true progun peers think what we think, imagine what Sally soccer mom thinks.

Soccer Mom juror plus......



Equals.........






Link Posted: 7/29/2005 10:40:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 10:44:10 AM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Interesting and inovative set up, but there's disadvantages to that. What happens if you get mugged in the grocery store or the 7-11 parking lot? Do you have a backup on your person, or do you move the Glock to your belt everytime you get out of the car? If you have one on your belt then your leaving a Glock in plain sight? If your switching holsters everytime thats gotta be a pain in the butt and you take the chance of someone seeing the switch and freaking out.

Thats a cool set up but it's better to keep it on your belt where you can get to it everytime.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:50:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RS_Coyote:
We had rather see you and every one else here stay out of trouble then ask for it.


My point exactly. Thanks RS.

SKS-
Grow a thicker skin young 'un, we all did stoopid things, things of questionable merit and things that REALLY sounded like good ideas (But might not have been), you'll be no different. You'll always catch shit for being younger from us older guys, that's just the way of the world.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:59:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 12:00:19 PM EDT by bigscrun]
Now let me tell you a story about the WSP.

In 1997 I was working in Federal Way at Car Toys, driving to work 10 minutes late I get pulled over for speeding, 10 over if I remember. I had a G19 concealed on the small of my back, I was in a shirt and tie with a sport coat over.

Before I handed the officer my license I did the routine, "I have a CCW and a weapon" line. I was ordered out of the car and on to the ground on the side of the freeway. My clothes are filthy now and the cop is freaking out. His back up arrives 2 minutes later, 2 more cruisers. After talking to the officer the senior WSP officer tells me to get up, apologizes and lets me go.

I was in the right, everything was legal, but I could of gotten shot.



In my honest opinion your are asking for trouble.................


Remember if a cop freaks out and shoots you at a traffic stop because he feels threatened, he goes home on paid administrative leave, you gome home dead.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 1:28:22 PM EDT
There is not requirement to tell an officer that you have a conceled pistol. I think your best bet would to keep it out of sight and dont divulge anything until asked.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 1:31:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JaredB:
There is not requirement to tell an officer that you have a conceled pistol. I think your best bet would to keep it out of sight and dont divulge anything until asked.



What happens when your CCP show up on the Drivers License inquiry? Don't you think they are owed that respect? I have gotten out of a few tickets for being up front with it, the cops thought it was respectful.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 2:40:33 PM EDT
I don't like that rig because:

1. If I had to leave the car the weapon isn't automatically coming with me.

2. It sets you up for a bad situation with an LEO contact.

3. You can't use it if there is another person in the car without a CPL.

and as an LEO, I prefer people tell me. I consider it respectful and weigh my decisions on the stop thusly.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:16:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MacLean:
I don't like that rig because:

1. If I had to leave the car the weapon isn't automatically coming with me.

2. It sets you up for a bad situation with an LEO contact.

3. You can't use it if there is another person in the car without a CPL.

and as an LEO, I prefer people tell me. I consider it respectful and weigh my decisions on the stop thusly.



1. Yes, it's a bad spot for it, if that's your only holster. You wear a holster on your body too, and this will solve the problem. It's hard to draw your firearm, when your holster is under your shirt, with a selt belt strap across your chest/belt region.

2. It could. So gotta be careful with it.

3. Curious about this. Never heard of it before. RCW to back it up?
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:31:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MacLean:

and as an LEO, I prefer people tell me. I consider it respectful and weigh my decisions on the stop thusly.



I have a few cop friends, and they all say the same thing. But they are also gun enthusiasts, are not threatened by legal CCW. Not all cops are like that. Some cops don't even like their OWN gun, much less anyone else having one. The problem is knowing which cop is standing next to your car door, and how they'll react.

Here are two stories from my past pull-overs:
1.) Speeding in Mountlake Terrace and get pulled over by two Lynnwood police officers (one car.) They ask for license and registration, which is in the glove box with a NAA .22 Mag mini-revolver. I tell them there is a weapon in there, because I'd rather tell them first before they suddenly see it and me reaching in, potential towards it. They say "That's fine, just get the registration and insurance, and hand over the pistol please."

So far, no real problem. They take the three items back to their car and come back in about 5 minutes, with the ticket filled out and my mini-revolver broken down and unloaded. They ask that I not reload it until they have left (whatever.) THEN the one cop remarks "You know, if you had shot me with that, and I ever found out about it, I would probably be pretty mad." Hahaha, I got a joker for police officer! I have it loaded with a shotshell as the first shot (aim for the face) followed by four .22 WMR hollow points. I wouldn't want to get with that shit at point blank range. And no vest is going is going to save your face from a blast of shot. I was never asked why I needed a gun.

2.) Going a little fast through Northgate, and a police officer pulls me over. He says he wanted to make sure I wasn't a drunk driver. I was changing lanes a lot trying to get around the slow-pokes. Anyway, when he asks for "my papers" I tell him my license is in my back pocket, and I have to reach past my concealed Glock 23 to get to it. His response? "Well, I'm still pretty fast for being a little older, so I'm not worried about it. Just hand me your license and CPL." So I get my license and give him the other papers and he heads back to his cruiser to run the info. My gun is still in my holster, he never asked to see it, take it, or why I had it. He comes back and lets me off with a warning to slow down and watch the lane changes. Overall, a very cool, calm and collected officer.

I have also been pulled over more recently on SR900 for 9 MPH over. I did not volunteer that I was carrying (wallet moved from back pocket to front pocket, so I didn't have to expose the gun or reach past it to retrieve my wallet.) I was given a warning to watch my speed and sent on my way. I was expecting the worst, as he was a motorcycle cop, and they (in my experience) have been the most humorless and least forgiving of the cops out there.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:50:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

3. Curious about this. Never heard of it before. RCW to back it up?



RCW 9.41.050 Section 2A

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 there is another person in the vehicle, you run into a constructive possession problem. On whose person is the weapon if it is stapled to the console?

So, if a passenger didn't have a CPL, is that pistol in their possession? It certainly isn't on their person as required by the RCW.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:56:00 AM EDT
While we are telling cop stories heres one. About 7-8 years ago I was in Tri-Cities 2am in the morning stranded. How I got stranded is another story for another day, but I can say after half dozen keger stands and loosing my woman the previous day........ I was walking from the Flying-J Truck stop to the Bus station, half way there a car with 4 Mexicans stop and proceed to get out. I was under or near a street light, feeling fear for my life, I drew my Colt 1911 45 Gov on the closest and yelled for them to get back in the car. They did and left. I walked another 3 blocks and come across a local cop doing paper work. It was darker so I think I took mag light and pointed it at my body so he could see me approach. IIRC he then got out and was ready to draw I ID'ed my self and told him I was armed looking for the bus station. He had me spread out on his car for a frisk took my CCW ran my ID, asked why I had such a big light and handed me all my shit back loaded. Told me to get in the back of his car (with my 45 loaded and ready) & he would give me a ride to the bus stop. I did not say anything about the Mexicans I figured they were looking for trouble not the law.


To this day it blows me away why he let me ride in the back of his car with a weapon and not knowing who I was. I consider my self lucky I made it through that night.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 11:31:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MacLean:

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

3. Curious about this. Never heard of it before. RCW to back it up?



RCW 9.41.050 Section 2A

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 there is another person in the vehicle, you run into a constructive possession problem. On whose person is the weapon if it is stapled to the console?

So, if a passenger didn't have a CPL, is that pistol in their possession? It certainly isn't on their person as required by the RCW.



The quoted section of RCW, as we discussed in the other post lists three conditions (i),(ii) or (iii). Since they are only seperated by an "or" at the end, then only ONE condition needs to be met to fulfill the law. It isn't (i) AND (ii) OR (iii.) It is (i) OR (ii) OR (iii.) That would have to have been specifically spelled out in the RCW that way, but it does not. So the law doesn't require that the a CPL holder to have the pistol on them while they are in the car, it can be in plain view. Only if they leave the car must the pistol be locked away and out of view.

However, that doesn't address the situation you mention where there are other occupants in the car that are not CPL holders. If they are in the front seat, I think it presents a problem. If they are in the back seat and the pistol is in the front, I don't see a problem.

I am not a lawyer (and neither is just about any cop out there, if any at all) so take this advice for what it is worth. Many cops think they are lawyers and apply the law AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT, but that is also why we have lawyers and judges, to pass judgement and either correct or affirm the cop's interpretation of the law......
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 11:38:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 11:41:46 AM EDT by R-32]

Originally Posted By Scollins:
I am not a lawyer (and neither is just about any cop out there, if any at all) .



Dont be so sure of that, I know 3 and all but 1 of them less than 10 min's away from me right now, all different departments, one is also a FFL.

Some guys goto law school dont like it/cant hack it and become cops, Im willing to bet there is a bigger number than you think. the 3 that I know also all practice in one way of another, but only 1 has a practice...
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 11:59:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By MacLean:

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

3. Curious about this. Never heard of it before. RCW to back it up?



RCW 9.41.050 Section 2A

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 there is another person in the vehicle, you run into a constructive possession problem. On whose person is the weapon if it is stapled to the console?

So, if a passenger didn't have a CPL, is that pistol in their possession? It certainly isn't on their person as required by the RCW.



The quoted section of RCW, as we discussed in the other post lists three conditions (i),(ii) or (iii). Since they are only seperated by an "or" at the end, then only ONE condition needs to be met to fulfill the law. It isn't (i) AND (ii) OR (iii.) It is (i) OR (ii) OR (iii.) That would have to have been specifically spelled out in the RCW that way, but it does not. So the law doesn't require that the a CPL holder to have the pistol on them while they are in the car, it can be in plain view. Only if they leave the car must the pistol be locked away and out of view.

However, that doesn't address the situation you mention where there are other occupants in the car that are not CPL holders. If they are in the front seat, I think it presents a problem. If they are in the back seat and the pistol is in the front, I don't see a problem.

I am not a lawyer (and neither is just about any cop out there, if any at all) so take this advice for what it is worth. Many cops think they are lawyers and apply the law AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT, but that is also why we have lawyers and judges, to pass judgement and either correct or affirm the cop's interpretation of the law......



I think in this case constructive possession shouldn't be an issue since the console has obviously been modified for the holster, which contains the weapon it was designed for. It should be plain that the vehicle owner and CCW holder has possession regardless who else is in the vehicle.

Whether it's practical is best left to the owner. To each their own.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 5:40:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tumbleweed:
Whether it's practical is best left to the owner. To each their own.



That I agree with. If ylu are 21 and you are with 20- 40 year olds and they all tell you its a bad idea and you insist...............


As my Grama used to say, "A hard head makes a soft ass"....



Its his ass

Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:16:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 8:19:13 PM EDT by RedDawg6]
In this day and age we all need to travel under the fookin' radar. Here's a hypothetical situation for ya. Let's say your at the local shopping mall and just find a parking space. Mrs. Liberal Soccer Mom is just getting out of her car parked next to you. She sees the handgun in the holster on the console and freaks out and calls 911 on her cell phone. Who the hell knows what kind of BS she just told the 911 dispatcher and who knows what kind of BS the 911 dispatcher has just told the cop on the radio. Cops and dispatchers sometimes have a communication problem. We now have a cluster fuck in the making! Just maybe this cop was a former soccer mom who thinks guns are evil and doesn't even like carrying her gun on the job but WTF the pay and the benifits are good so she plugs her nose and does it any way. Do you think this cop is going to give you a break? Some cops have no problem with citizens being armed. Some cops do have a problem (aka: they dislike personal freedom). You as a citizen do not get to pick and choose which cop comes to the scene to investigate this cluster fuck you started by leaving your firearm in open view for all the liberals to see. Just another way of looking at the situation.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:06:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scollins:
The quoted section of RCW, as we discussed in the other post lists three conditions (i),(ii) or (iii). Since they are only seperated by an "or" at the end, then only ONE condition needs to be met to fulfill the law. It isn't (i) AND (ii) OR (iii.) It is (i) OR (ii) OR (iii.) That would have to have been specifically spelled out in the RCW that way, but it does not. So the law doesn't require that the a CPL holder to have the pistol on them while they are in the car, it can be in plain view. Only if they leave the car must the pistol be locked away and out of view.

However, that doesn't address the situation you mention where there are other occupants in the car that are not CPL holders. If they are in the front seat, I think it presents a problem. If they are in the back seat and the pistol is in the front, I don't see a problem.




The comma used actually means "and" - especially when each comma used follows the first listed "and" and is later modified with an "or" for a section to follow. Check it out or speak to a lawyer if you don't believe me.

The or at the end before the last section is the modifier, meaning that the clause following the "or" is an exception to the first three "ands."

However, even with that said we have reached a point of agreement in that I was only specifically referring to other occupants of the vehicle and how the law would be applied to them.

Small side note, there are a good many police lawyers. Someone else mentions the point in another post.

Me? Nah. I'm a gun law nut, but not a lawyer.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:42:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 10:45:27 PM EDT by Scollins]

Originally Posted By MacLean:

The comma used actually means "and" - especially when each comma used follows the first listed "and" and is later modified with an "or" for a section to follow. Check it out or speak to a lawyer if you don't believe me.

The or at the end before the last section is the modifier, meaning that the clause following the "or" is an exception to the first three "ands."



Actually, it does not mean "and." There are other examples in the RCW, written in the same (i), (ii) or (iii) fashion, and it is clear from those entries that only one of the conditions must be met, not all three. Since the construction of each law entry is the same, each must be interpreted the same way. This is how we are allowed to own suppressors, but not actually use them. The AG opinion stated here is an indication of such a requirement to use the more lenient of two interpretations www.atg.wa.gov/opinions/1988/opinion_1988_016.html Since only "use" was specifically prohibited, and not possession, as used in other sections with regards to other specific weapons, then the mere possession of suppressor is not illegal.

Here are the other sections where the (i), (ii) or (iii) are shown:

RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public



In this section, a person can be held as a material witness (ii) but may not fall into category (i). If it was (i) AND (ii) like you mentioned, then the restricted access areas of a jail would only be those sections used for people "arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense AND held for extradition or as a material witness." That would be a very small portion of a jail I would think. It is clearly a (i) OR (ii) OR (iii) situation, but it is written (i), (ii) OR (iii), just like the RCW in question.

RCW 9.41.040 is also very similar, with subsection (2) have (i), (ii), (iii) AND/OR (iv). There are probably more examples, but I only searched through RCW 9.41.

ANYWAY, as has been stated by CavVet and others, while it may be LEGAL to do something, it may not be WISE nor PRUDENT to do something. My gun is always on me, unless I'm going somewhere I can't bring it. Then it gets locked in the car.

There have been a few instances where I've cleared leather and kept the gun a little more accessible, but that is only when the "hincky" meter is pegged by some dirtbag or a car full of gang bangers acting aggressively towards myself or other drivers nearby. When the potential threat has passed, the pistol goes back into its holster on my hip. It stays low, out of sight, and is never "brandished" or shown to the threat to try and make them go away. I usually don't hang around long enough for that, because I get the Dodge the fuck OUT of Dodge as fast as I can!

ETA: And I guess there are more cop/lawyer types out there than I supposed. Out of the six personal cop friends, a dozen or so that I've known over the years, and a few on this board, none of them have been lawyers. I made an assumption based on that sample. Since the sample is exceedingly small, that assumption was in error. Mea Culpa!
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:51:51 PM EDT
***Here are the other sections where the (i), (ii) or (iii) are shown:***

Yer a smart cookie, and I likes talking to other smart people!

I note that in the example I mention, the sections i, ii, and iii are mentioned after an "and" which modifies their meaning.

In the example you posted, there is no "and" in front of those lettered sections.

In the example you post, you are correct.

The example I posted was different, ever so slightly. The "and" comes first, and is then followed by the commas, and the last section is preceded by the "or."

Follow me?

"and" and "or" are switches. It's like a logic map or a flowchart.

***ANYWAY, as has been stated by CavVet and others, while it may be LEGAL to do something, it may not be WISE nor PRUDENT to do something.***

Damn true story.

Link Posted: 7/30/2005 11:06:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MacLean:
Yer a smart cookie, and I likes talking to other smart people!



You will ove this crowd then, despite our rough edges fromt iem to time, we have some really really smart mofo's around here.

Link Posted: 7/30/2005 11:46:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By MacLean:
Yer a smart cookie, and I likes talking to other smart people!



You will ove this crowd then, despite our rough edges fromt iem to time, we have some really really smart mofo's around here.




Where do I get some of that "smart mofo" stuff?


Link Posted: 7/31/2005 2:29:25 AM EDT
All them big words make my head hurt!
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:17:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MacLean:

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

3. Curious about this. Never heard of it before. RCW to back it up?



RCW 9.41.050 Section 2A

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 there is another person in the vehicle, you run into a constructive possession problem. On whose person is the weapon if it is stapled to the console?

So, if a passenger didn't have a CPL, is that pistol in their possession? It certainly isn't on their person as required by the RCW.



I know I'm a little late here, but here is my chime. It's not required by law. Others agreed. Doesnt state anything about having other people in the car.

Now with constructive possession. Now, doesnt this tag the owner of the vehicle?

For example, with drugs. Found in car. Passenger claim it's not his. Driver claims it's not his. But doesnt the driver/owner still get charged with possession?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:34:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By R-32:


Where do I get some of that "smart mofo" stuff?



After a few phone conversations with CavVet, I'm convinced that Hookers and Blow CAN be a fountian of youth and knowledge.....


But to stay on topic......reasonable and prudent should be anyone's guide in handling firearms, especially "Over there" on the wet side.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:16:02 AM EDT
Well looks like SKSGUY may have ran away from this one....


Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:
Now with constructive possession. Now, doesnt this tag the owner of the vehicle?

For example, with drugs. Found in car. Passenger claim it's not his. Driver claims it's not his. But doesnt the driver/owner still get charged with possession?



Thats a good question, anybody got a lawfull answer?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:30:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

I know I'm a little late here, but here is my chime. It's not required by law. Others agreed. Doesnt state anything about having other people in the car.

Now with constructive possession. Now, doesnt this tag the owner of the vehicle?

For example, with drugs. Found in car. Passenger claim it's not his. Driver claims it's not his. But doesnt the driver/owner still get charged with possession?



First off, others agreeing isn't going to prevent you - or a passenger - from being arrested or cited.

Check with a gun lawyer, for sure - cops and lawyers are sometimes wrong - a perfect cop or lawyer hasn't been invented yet

I checked with our prosecutor, she agrees with me - so at least where I work you might be charged. Maybe not found guilty, that's what the court is for.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:33:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 1:35:51 PM EDT by PCR-00]

Originally Posted By MacLean:

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

I know I'm a little late here, but here is my chime. It's not required by law. Others agreed. Doesnt state anything about having other people in the car.

Now with constructive possession. Now, doesnt this tag the owner of the vehicle?

For example, with drugs. Found in car. Passenger claim it's not his. Driver claims it's not his. But doesnt the driver/owner still get charged with possession?



First off, others agreeing isn't going to prevent you - or a passenger - from being arrested or cited.

Check with a gun lawyer, for sure - cops and lawyers are sometimes wrong - a perfect cop or lawyer hasn't been invented yet

I checked with our prosecutor, she agrees with me - so at least where I work you might be charged. Maybe not found guilty, that's what the court is for.



Best damned answer yet. So in other words....CYA! YOUR Firearm should only be within reach of YOU!

ETA: Some may think that it is screwed up jack booted thug thinking...but, the law is the law, and best protect yourself from having to spend too much time talking to the law (unless its over coffee or a beer). You may believe that in court you'll get the charges dropped, but don't you have something better to do on a tuesday afternoon than prove that you were right all along?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:35:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 1:36:12 PM EDT by PCR-00]
<<Whoops, double tap!>>
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:50:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MacLean:

Originally Posted By A96HondaAccordEX:

I know I'm a little late here, but here is my chime. It's not required by law. Others agreed. Doesnt state anything about having other people in the car.

Now with constructive possession. Now, doesnt this tag the owner of the vehicle?

For example, with drugs. Found in car. Passenger claim it's not his. Driver claims it's not his. But doesnt the driver/owner still get charged with possession?



First off, others agreeing isn't going to prevent you - or a passenger - from being arrested or cited.

Check with a gun lawyer, for sure - cops and lawyers are sometimes wrong - a perfect cop or lawyer hasn't been invented yet

I checked with our prosecutor, she agrees with me - so at least where I work you might be charged. Maybe not found guilty, that's what the court is for.


I dont know man. Sounds like orc mischief to me.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:04:55 PM EDT
Orc mischief?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:40:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:57:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HighCaliber:
I think it's awesome. Not something I would do though. I think the appearance of his car is a better deterent to carjacking than the Glock.



Dumb criminals feel fast and furious in MINI VANS
[flame
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top