911 MWAG call == RAS/PC here in WA? A not-so-hypothetical case.

[amlevin]

Isn't the "gold" badge for supervisors only?

If he's wearing one of these he can be any "rank" he wants, can't he?

 

[Schlepnier]

You haven't been paying attention have you??

Actually i have, as much as i like to support my fellow 2A advocates the letter of the law leads me to believe that

NavyLCDR is incorrect on many issues, in this particular case there are 3 elements to make this a valid terry stop.
1.you clearly have a gun
2.you are clearly within 1,000 ft of a school
No RAS here thats pretty clear fact.

Now the important part:
3. the officer has to have RAS that you DO NOT have a permit which would allow you to legally be involved in actions 1 & 2. if you have a permit then no crime is being commited and there is no RAS of a crime or reason for a terry stop. what would make it a valid stop would be some knowledge by the officer that you had no legal right to have a firearm, are you had no legal access to a CPL

It is actually not up to you to prove anything, the 4th ammendment including the terry decision and the constitutional garauntee of innoccent until PROVEN GUILTY means that the officer must be able to prove that he had RAS that you were in violation of the GFSZ by being without a CPL. the courts have ruled that it cannot be a hunch.

Which brings us back to what is RAS- Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). also Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008)

There is a reason why the GFSZ regulation is mostly never enforced. although it can be tact on as an extra charge after another crime has been commited.

An officer can indeed ask if you have a CPL, and you can answer in the affirmative to allay his suspicion of a GFSZ violation, however you are lot legally required to produce it. the decision is yours.

 

[gogodawgs]

Does an officer have the right in the above scenario to have a consensual encounter? Yes.

Does the officer have the right to have an investigative detention? In my opinion, yes. You may refuse to answer/show information about your CPL at your discretion.

Does an officer have the right to make an arrest? In my opinion, no. And you refuse to answer/show your CPL and remain silent. However, let's say an officer did and while doing a pat down search discovered your CPL. Then you are immediately released. Would the officer then be in violation of your rights?

 

[Schlepnier]

Does the officer have the right to have an investigative detention? In my opinion, yes. You may refuse to answer/show information about your CPL at your discretion.

Does he?

Lets look at it this way

A simple scenerio: you are open carry on public property and:

1.LEO walks up to you and says, " i notice your openly carrying your pistol, i do not know who you are and i want to check your ID to make sure you not a felon(prohibited person) in possession of a firearm."

2.LEO walks up to you and says, " i notice your openly carrying your pistol, i do not know who you are and i want to check your CPL to make sure your not a prohibited person carrying a firearm in a GFSZ."

The situation is exactly identical where the law in concerned. SCOTUS has already ruled that LEOs cannot detain and go on "fishing expeditions" to find a crime.

Without a RAS of a crime, namely you are a probited person(in both cases) they cannot provide RAS that you are in fact commiting a crime are not commiting a crime.

As such anything other than a concensual encounter would be a violation of TERRY and of RCW 9A.80.010

Once you inform the officer in a concensual encouter you do indeed have a CPL, there is no crime and any further detainment or demands would be a violation of the law.

Again every situation is different and it is up to you to gauge what you choose to do.

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

WILLFULL IGNORENCE???

I can see your explaning how the two laws are written.

9.41.050, has the thing that is prohibited, and the exception, all in one sentance.

The GFSZ law, has the thing that is prohibited, standing alone in one sentence,,,
then in Another sentence, the exception is listed, all by itself, just down the page a little ways.

It seems to me that a cop would be just a little, or a lot, guilty of Dereliction of his duty to know the full and complete
law before he could form enough RAS to Terry stop me for carrying in a GFSZ.

 

[Schlepnier]

No, they aren't exactly identical. You either can't see that or just refuse to. In situation #2 it IS THE GFSZ that PROHIBITS THE PERSON!

It like: 1. You are standing 1 foot inside my gate on my property - you are not trespassing until I tell you that you are. 2. You are standing 1 foot inside my gate on my property AND you walked by a clearly posted NO TRESPASSING sign on the gate. Exactly identical situations? NO.

It is only the GFSZ that prohibits the person IF they have no CPL. and that violation can only be considered if the officer has some knowledge(RAS) that you are in violation. the 2 examples i cited are EXACTLY the same.
Both are laws and both have exceptions(you can/cant carry a pistol if......). both are covered under previous supreme court ruling as to conduct allowed by LEOs when it comes to RAS/terry stops and stops to demand identification/licences. i can see it just fine and i also can see all the other rulings that affect how a GFSZ can and cannot be treated based on the 4thA as well as said rulings. i am not going to tell people weather or not they should be forced to show ID, however i will point out the applicable court rulings and let them make there own decisions.

Your example is also false. in situation 2 to make it fit the GFSZ example-i would be 1 foot inside the gate past the no tresspassing sign with stated permission to be there(CPL).

There is a reason why GFSZ laws are rarely enforced or even recognized other than to add charges onto somebody who has already commited other crimes in a GFSZ.

 

[LkWd_Don]

Your example is also false. in situation 2 to make it fit the GFSZ example-i would be 1 foot inside the gate past the no tresspassing sign with stated permission to be there(CPL).

There is a reason why GFSZ laws are rarely enforced or even recognized other than to add charges onto somebody who has already commited other crimes in a GFSZ.

I don't doubt that the second point I saved here is true.. and I wish to ask a question and make a point.

First the question. What does the Federal Code on GFSZ say about appropriate signage to identify the limits?
Now,I recall reading somewhere that here in Washington State the GFSZ is reduced to 500 feet and then RCW 9.41.280 specifies (7) "GUN-FREE ZONE" signs shall be posted around school facilities giving warning of the prohibition of the possession of firearms on school grounds.

Now, to deal with the first point. Taking my daughter to and from school frequently, I have yet to see said signage clearly posted. I have seen a sign with extremely small print that may include that somewhere within it, but that sign is located over 50 feet inside of the school property. Making your comment close to the truth.. as it is possible to your being well within the prohibited area before even knowing that you might be prohibited. And if I am not mistaken, that the GFZ is supposed to be 500 feet here in Washington.. then the signs should be posted at those limits and they are not.

EDIT I found the 500' comment in http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 and it does not deal with a general restriction, but one on business location.

(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.

 

[LkWd_Don]

The Federal GFSZ statute is still 1000' and that cannot be reduced by state law. No signs are required by the Federal GFSZ law. The Federal GFSZ law is 18 USC 922(q) with the 1000' definition of a school zone in 18 USC 921.

Thank you.. I didn't think the Feds had signage required. Which makes it all the easier to violate a law unintentionally, but of course.. they will claim that ignorance of a law is not an excuse for unintentionally violating it. But that is the root of the problem with most Federal Laws.. there are so many and no pro-active education provided to insure that people do not become unintentional criminals. Almost like the Feds intend on all citizens becoming felons to where they lose a right to vote and then can not oppose them.

 

[LkWd_Don]

A pro-active education on all the laws applicable would take a lifetime to accomplish. I would venture a haphazard guess that probably 90% of the population has committed at least one felony before they are 30 years old.

You are being generous. After learning more about Federal Laws and what can be considered as a felony offense.. I might reduce that to 25yo

 

[Schlepnier]

It also adds a whole new level of confusion since local LEO may enforce federal law but are not required to(like they do not in california for medical weed and such)

Given that in WA state no licence/CPL is required to OC you are not breaking any state law and are in fact protected in doing said action. thats where the 10th ammendmant/article II conflagration comes in. Nowhere in the consitution is the federal government permited to make firearms regulations save the protection from infringement in the 2A and the commerce clause reguarding sales and transport.


While OC some do not even carry their CPL on them because they do not wish to be forced to produce it like NavyLCDR. in such a situation if you are challenged on the grounds of the federal GFSZ law all you can do is tell them you have a CPL and are exempt. which is no different then the above examples i gave if you had it on you and refused to produce it citing lack of RAS after you notify your exemption.


Again all LEOs are people and while we hope for reasonable behavior we cannot guarantee it. after noting you have a CPL and are exempt any futher contact should be only under consensual grounds since no law if being broken.


I digress however since we haver strayed far from the OPs situation since the GFSZ issue does not even apply on private property

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

the officer would ask to see your CPL to show that you were exempt from the Federal GFSZ law. You would say you had one, but weren't carrying it. Cop would issue you a citation.

The local COPS or OFFICERS will NOT enforce the FEDERAL GFSZ law...
They dont have the authority to issue a citation..
They dont even want to..

 

[amlevin]

the officer would ask to see your CPL to show that you were exempt from the Federal GFSZ law. You would say you had one, but weren't carrying it. Cop would issue you a citation.

The local COPS or OFFICERS will NOT enforce the FEDERAL GFSZ law...
They dont have the authority to issue a citation..
They dont even want to..

They'll just hold you for the "Feds" if you piss them off enough.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wow!!!

They could issue a citation for violating RCW 9.41.050 - failure to display CPL upon demand to law enforcement officer.

You have a gun inside a Federal GFSZ. Officer asks for CPL to verify that you fall under the "licensed by the state" exemption for the Federal GFSZ law. You fail to display it. How is that not a violation of the RCW 9.41.050 requirement to display the CPL to a Law Enforcement Officer Z upon demand or to any other person when required by law when you are attempting to claim the CPL as an exemption to violating the Federal law?

im starting to wonder who you are!
I spent two years disputing the CPL fishing expidition of Cops.
Local cops can Not detain you for Federal Crimes!
Walk Away!!!

Remember, I Am Any other person,,, and I require you to display your CPL....

 

[slapmonkay]

They could issue a citation for violating RCW 9.41.050 - failure to display CPL upon demand to law enforcement officer.

You have a gun inside a Federal GFSZ. Officer asks for CPL to verify that you fall under the "licensed by the state" exemption for the Federal GFSZ law. You fail to display it. How is that not a violation of the RCW 9.41.050 requirement to display the CPL to a Law Enforcement Officer Z upon demand or to any other person when required by law when you are attempting to claim the CPL as an exemption to violating the Federal law?

False. I disputed this earlier in the thread, on page 1.

Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

I am not required by this section (RCW 9.41) to have a CPL to be within 1000' of a school. Nor by federal law am I required to show the CPL, it simply requires you to have one.

I see nothing that requires me to display my CPL by law. If you do, please point it out because at this point I am sticking to my original plan of not providing a CPL on request by local LEO. I possibly would inform him that I do hold a state CPL, which even when not required would satisfy the federal exception.

 

[LkWd_Don]

I will generally not believe a word a Law Enforcement Officer has to say to me in an official capacity. I don't expect the Law Enforcement Officer to believe what I tell them either. I carry a loaded gun on public property within 1,000' of a school, I am violating Federal law. I do not expect a police officer to believe that I am exempt from the law for no other reason than I tell them I am exempt. I will show them my license that does exempt me from the law if they ask for it and if I am carrying it.

Stopped for a traffic stop, I hand the officer my Wyoming Driver's license. I am violating the law that says a new resident must get a Washington Driver's License within 30 days. I don't expect that officer to belive I am exempt from that law for no other reason than I tell them I am exempt. I will show them my military ID card which exempts me from the law.

I see nothing wrong with officers lawfully investigating actual offenses/infractions and not believing every word that every person says to them at face value.

Oh? So the LEO knows already how long you have been here? Come on now.. unless you have given them a reason to suspect that you have been here for more than a YEAR, then they have to accept your Wyoming DL.

Ah.. but you think it is 30 days.. How about this.. RCW 46.20.025

Exemptions. The following persons may operate a motor vehicle on a Washington highway without a valid Washington driver's license: (2) A nonresident driver who is at least: (c) Sixteen years of age and has immediate possession of a valid driver's license issued to the driver by his or her home country. A nonresident driver may operate a motor vehicle in this state under this subsection (2)(c) for up to one year;

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.025

 

[LkWd_Don]

I know that the key argument will be that according to RCW 46.20.021 it says New Residents have 30 days.. and that 46.20.025 2(c) has a word that for the most part does not apply.. the operative word being "Country", however, having used that with my Ex-Wife to get her out of a ticket when the residency requirement of 46.20.021 had stated "must obtain within a reasonable time" and 10 months later/3 speeding tickets later.. LEO's were getting a bit tired of her not having a Washington License that they could effect, so they wrote her up for invalid license. LOL

 

[Schlepnier]

False. I disputed this earlier in the thread, on page 1.



I am not required by this section (RCW 9.41) to have a CPL to be within 1000' of a school. Nor by federal law am I required to show the CPL, it simply requires you to have one.

I see nothing that requires me to display my CPL by law. If you do, please point it out because at this point I am sticking to my original plan of not providing a CPL on request by local LEO. I possibly would inform him that I do hold a state CPL, which even when not required would satisfy the federal exception.

There are actually 2 parts of RCW 9.41.050(1)(b) that NavyLCDR is completely wrong about.
1.you do not have to have it on you if your activity does not require it to be present(OC on foot) and
2.you only have to present it upon demand WHEN IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW to do so.

"Upon demand" in of itself is not legal justification, i have already posted the court cases that ruled this to be the law.
making demands outside the scope of the law under color of authority would be unlawful orders and you are not required to follow them.
If you are OC on foot in WA state not only are you not required to have your CPL on your person even if you have one, you are also not legally required to produce it since one is not legally required to OC.

 

[LkWd_Don]

If you are going to argue for the sake of argument, at least try to get something concrete behind your arguments instead of weak attempts at false supports for your false arguments.
1. My Wyoming driver's license has a Washington address on it. Pretty good indication I am a Washington resident.

2. I have had vehicles registered in my name in Washington since 2007. Pretty good indication I have been a Washington resident for more than 30 days, especially when they check registrations on traffic stops.

3. When I moved here in 2007 on PERMANENT change of station of orders, I met the definition of resident contained in RCW 46.20.021:

4. Since I met the definition of a new resident when I moved here in 2007, RCW 46.20.025 is completely non-applicable and irrelevant because it applies only to non-residents. I was required by RCW 46.20.021 to obtain a Washington Driver's license within 30 days of moving here in 2007:

For your specific circumstance, Yes!

However, even with the Washington Administrative Code 308-104-008 "Persons exempt from driver's license requirement" that you even cited shows more than just a Military exemption that can explain not obtaining a Resident License for.. (How long can someone stretch out Law School or Medical School?) what maybe 10 years? During that time as long as you are a Full Time Student and your Home of Record is Wyoming, your physical address can be within the State of Washington, you can get multiple tickets within Washington and you can purchase vehicle after vehicle, even multiple vehicles for other family members who are also exempt under your being a registered full time Student here in Washington.
Let us look at how tht cite reads:

In addition to persons exempt from driver license requirement pursuant to RCW 46.20.025, the following persons are exempt from the requirement to obtain a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under chapter 46.20 RCW:

(1) A student who maintains his or her legal home of record at a location outside Washington state, or the spouse or dependent of the student, who is at least sixteen years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her home jurisdiction. The student must be enrolled as a full-time nonresident student at an institution of higher learning in Washington accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges or by an accrediting association recognized by the higher education board, or at a private vocational school as that term is defined by RCW 28C.10.020(7). The student must carry documentation issued by the institution that readily establishes his or her status as a nonresident student. A spouse or dependent of a nonresident student must carry a copy of the documentation issued to the student by the institution and documentation establishing the relationship with the student;

(2) Military personnel who are at least sixteen years of age who have in their immediate possession a valid driver's license issued by the jurisdiction designated as their home of record. A spouse or dependent of a person who meets the criteria of this subsection is also exempt from the driver's license requirement, provided that the spouse or dependent has in his or her immediate possession a valid driver's license issued by the jurisdiction designated as his or her home of record.

So, that being said.. Lets go back to the statement that I was commenting on to begin with, and ask.. Without the LEO having specific advance knowledge to your personal situation, what RAS would that LEO have to cite you for having an invalid license of failing to obtain a resident license?

So...do you have any other unsubstantiated and just plain incorrect arguments that you would like to be disproved?

What unsubstantiated or disproved arguments? Those that you tried to avoid in your cite?

 

[LkWd_Don]

There are actually 2 parts of RCW 9.41.050(1)(b) that NavyLCDR is completely wrong about.
1.you do not have to have it on you if your activity does not require it to be present(OC on foot) and
2.you only have to present it upon demand WHEN IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW to do so.

"Upon demand" in of itself is not legal justification, i have already posted the court cases that ruled this to be the law.
making demands outside the scope of the law under color of authority would be unlawful orders and you are not required to follow them.
If you are OC on foot in WA state not only are you not required to have your CPL on your person even if you have one, you are also not legally required to produce it since one is not legally required to OC.

Object being highlighted.
I agree with one minor correction.
The highlighted section above should read that: you are also not legally required to produce it since there is nothing legally preventing you from OC with or without a CPL.

As a note.. since the topic is about OC in a GFSZ.. I would have to conclude that I am walking through a GFSZ and without there being any Statute requiring the marking of such Zones (except on the School Grounds themselves) and since RCW's do not prevent me from OC'ing off of School Property.. I would protest whatever action were taken once it got to Court and am fairly certain that I would win my case if the LEO citing me could not show that I was doing of a criminal nature other than being in that GFSZ.

 

[LkWd_Don]

The LEO would have to have probable cause that you were a resident of Washington for >30 days in order to cite you for failure to obtain a Washington Driver's license. Several factors could provide probable cause: You were cited in Washington for a previous offense >30 days earlier, you have a Washington vehicle registration that is >30 days old, you have a Washington insurance card that is >30 days old. The officer asks you how long you have been in Washington and you tell him, someone else in the vehicle opens their mouth and says you have here >30 days. You have a Washington Discovery pass >30 days old.

If any factor such as those indicates you have been in Washington for >30 days, the officer has probable cause to issue you a citation. Then, it is up to YOU, and YOU alone to either convince the officer that you fall under an exemption or to wait and show your evidence of an exemption to the judge. It's easiest just to show the officer your proof of exemption right there on the spot and be on your way.

I know that years ago when there was Excise tax charged on vehicle registrations, there was an incentive for military personnel or student's to register their vehicles as a non-resident to avoid paying those taxes and I know that the registration even identified itself as such.. Presently I do not know if that variable registration system is even used anymore.

However, even ignoring the Military or Student exemption.. The point I was making and even stated that I had used to get my ex-wife out of an invalid license ticket is that she had not been in the State for a year yet and the disparity between the codes.
Yes, the resident RCW at that time was not as specific as it is now(as I said already).. at that time it stated within a reasonable amout of time..
You have to understand I have been a transient resident of this state off and on since 1975, a land owning "resident" since 1985 even though I was still earth mobile till (and now continuously since) late 1993.

The disparity of laws if you are aware of them.. can be used against the system.. just like in the WAC 308.104.008 that being an administrative code and not an RCW.. may help to save your butt.. but has no real teeth without citing an RCW that then has the teeth. And looking for the teeth in that one.. what do we find.. Statutory Authority: RCW 46.01.110

RCW 46.01.011 Purpose.

The legislature finds that the department of licensing administers laws relating to the licensing and regulation of professions, businesses, and other activities in addition to administering laws relating to the licensing and regulation of vehicles and vehicle operators, dealers, and manufacturers. The laws administered by the department have the common denominator of licensing and regulation and are directed toward protecting and enhancing the well-being of the residents of the state.