• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Duty to Inform?

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
THAT is the problem, it is YOUR interpretation. NOT the interpretation of the COURT.

Lol its not really a problem for anyone because I'm just some dude on the internet utilizing a public forum having a public conversation with other dudes.

Also... You didn't address what he said either. He stated there is an attorney general opinion that states it does NOT have to be in your possession to be carried...hence me asking HIM for clarification...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
No answers to how does the cop glean from mere observation, the drive has no CPL? How does he glean it is loaded?

A permission slip by the state does not create RS or PC because an agent of the state observes said activity permission slip is needed.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
I get what you are saying I really do, but none the less there are lawful ways that firearm could have been there. There is no maybe in

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

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

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

I do not think that your assessment that she was "not carrying" is legally accurate (as discussed below), although it is physically accurate.

Cops do not always have to see a misdemeanor committed prior to having a lawful right to arrest.

Not necessarily directed at Jeff, but several of you seem to have overlooked (or do not understand) what I said about the "strict liability" of the statute.
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

I continue to read 9.41.050 to be a strict liability statute.

I will add can the Cop make the arrest oh hell yes, would he be wrong given the proper reading of the law oh hell yes. Lots of people get arrested, including me, because Cops do not know or understand the law.
More likely, they do understand the law, but simply do not like it and want to give you grief. I, too, have been arrested (and, curiously, convicted -- although overturned on appeal) for unlawful display. The end result was that it negatively affected the offending sergeant and cost the City of Seattle a whole BOATLOAD of money (read: tens of thousands) in the settlement.

+1

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

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

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

LEOs tend to totally ignore what the courts have ruled and interpret laws however they see fit, Primus included. But as has been said before... You may beat the rap, but not the ride.
The Keller decision is based upon well-established law and legal precedent.

Where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, a court will glean the legislative intent from the words of the statute itself. See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Smith v. N. Pac. Ry., 7 Wn.2d 652, 664, 110 P.2d 851 (1941). If the provision of a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005). A statutory term that is left undefined should be given its “usual and ordinary meaning and courts may not read into a statute a meaning that is not there.” State v. Hahn, 83 Wn. App. 825, 832, 924 P.2d 392 (1996). If the undefined statutory term is not technical, the court may refer to the dictionary to establish the meaning of the word. Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 144 Wn.2d 556, 564, 29 P.3d 709 (2001). In undertaking this plain language analysis, the court must remain careful to avoid “unlikely, absurd or strained” results. State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36, 742 P.2d 1244 (1987).

An analysis of the statute begins with the plain language employed by the legislature. Rest. Dev. v. Canwell, 150 Wn.2d at 682; State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). The Court’s primary goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent deriving such intent by construing the language as a whole, giving effect to every provision. J.P at 450. If the language is unambiguous, the Court is to give effect to that language and that language alone because the Court must presume the legislature says what it means and means what it says. State v. Radan, 143 Wn.2d 323, 330, 21 P.3d 255 (2001). Courts are obliged to apply the language of a statute as the legislature wrote it, rather than amend it by judicial construction. GESA Credit Union v. Mutual Life, 105 Wn.2d 248, 252, 713 P.2d 728 (1986). Clearly, where the plain words of a statute are unambiguous, a court’s inquiry is at an end. State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256, 263, 226 P.3d 131 (2010). If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and, absent legislative intent to the contrary, the rule of lenity requires a court to interpret the statute strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005).

What about the fact that she did not place the pistol in the car? Since she was not carrying it the first part would be a moot point would it not?
<snip>
The law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded pistol in any vehicle then it adds or place in a vehicle. I am reading that to say the person would have to be carrying the firearm on their person. I would be very odd verbiage to say the car was carrying the firearm. If you take out "or place" the law clearly says a person shall not carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle and then it adds or place. Since the woman was not carrying the firearm she did not commit the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Since the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle how could he deduce that she placed it in the car? I believe here in Washington the Cop has to actually see a misdemeanor to make an arrest for a misdemeanor absent any other witnesses. It is clear to me that the only two laws that can be broken under (2)(a) is carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle or placing a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is it nothing else is possible under the law. She was not carrying the firearm so that is out so the Cop would have to make the arrest for placing a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Since the Cop did not see the woman place the firearm in the vehicle what PC pr RAS does he have that she placed the firearm in the vehicle. Just because it is there does not rise to the level of PC that she placed the firearm in the vehicle.
Yes in some states carrying and transporting would be the same thing, you will get no argument form me on that.
The gun under the seat in Washington would not be carrying per the law.
I think that the courts see this a bit differently than you, Jeff.

The entire passenger compartment of an automobile is within the occupant arrestee’s wingspan and thus within his control. New York v Belton, 453 US 454 (1981).
The area immediately within a person’s immediate control in an automobile (the “wingspan” - an area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence) is presumptively in that person’s possession. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).

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

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Carrying-Concealed-Weapon.htm

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

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

Even better... when she opens glove box the pistol is now clearly in her possession. So THEN shed be in violation. And again..... gun needs to be unloaded even if she had a CPL so shes violating that in his presence....
what you are trying to use there is an article written by some dude that isnt even a lawyer. to me, taking legal advice from that page is the same as talimg advice from wikipedia or facebook.

They even tell you that in the disclaimer link at the bottom of the page.

"We are not lawyers or a law firm and we do not provide legal advice. None of our representatives are lawyers and they also do not provide legal advice."
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
what you are trying to use there is an article written by some dude that isnt even a lawyer. to me, taking legal advice from that page is the same as talimg advice from wikipedia or facebook.

They even tell you that in the disclaimer link at the bottom of the page.

"We are not lawyers or a law firm and we do not provide legal advice. None of our representatives are lawyers and they also do not provide legal advice."

I do not think that your assessment that she was "not carrying" is legally accurate (as discussed below), although it is physically accurate.

Cops do not always have to see a misdemeanor committed prior to having a lawful right to arrest.

Not necessarily directed at Jeff, but several of you seem to have overlooked (or do not understand) what I said about the "strict liability" of the statute.
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

I continue to read 9.41.050 to be a strict liability statute.


More likely, they do understand the law, but simply do not like it and want to give you grief. I, too, have been arrested (and, curiously, convicted -- although overturned on appeal) for unlawful display. The end result was that it negatively affected the offending sergeant and cost the City of Seattle a whole BOATLOAD of money (read: tens of thousands) in the settlement.


The Keller decision is based upon well-established law and legal precedent.

Where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, a court will glean the legislative intent from the words of the statute itself. See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Smith v. N. Pac. Ry., 7 Wn.2d 652, 664, 110 P.2d 851 (1941). If the provision of a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005). A statutory term that is left undefined should be given its “usual and ordinary meaning and courts may not read into a statute a meaning that is not there.” State v. Hahn, 83 Wn. App. 825, 832, 924 P.2d 392 (1996). If the undefined statutory term is not technical, the court may refer to the dictionary to establish the meaning of the word. Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 144 Wn.2d 556, 564, 29 P.3d 709 (2001). In undertaking this plain language analysis, the court must remain careful to avoid “unlikely, absurd or strained” results. State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36, 742 P.2d 1244 (1987).

An analysis of the statute begins with the plain language employed by the legislature. Rest. Dev. v. Canwell, 150 Wn.2d at 682; State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). The Court’s primary goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent deriving such intent by construing the language as a whole, giving effect to every provision. J.P at 450. If the language is unambiguous, the Court is to give effect to that language and that language alone because the Court must presume the legislature says what it means and means what it says. State v. Radan, 143 Wn.2d 323, 330, 21 P.3d 255 (2001). Courts are obliged to apply the language of a statute as the legislature wrote it, rather than amend it by judicial construction. GESA Credit Union v. Mutual Life, 105 Wn.2d 248, 252, 713 P.2d 728 (1986). Clearly, where the plain words of a statute are unambiguous, a court’s inquiry is at an end. State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256, 263, 226 P.3d 131 (2010). If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and, absent legislative intent to the contrary, the rule of lenity requires a court to interpret the statute strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005).




I think that the courts see this a bit differently than you, Jeff.

The entire passenger compartment of an automobile is within the occupant arrestee’s wingspan and thus within his control. New York v Belton, 453 US 454 (1981).
The area immediately within a person’s immediate control in an automobile (the “wingspan” - an area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence) is presumptively in that person’s possession. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).


Agreed. The laws do not say that the firearm must be on your person.

Jimbob- agreed. It was just a cite to explain what I was talking about as to what possession/carrying in a vehicle is.

Rapgood then explained what I was saying even better with better cites. I thank him for that and refer you to his post for a better summary of what I was trying to explain my interpretation was/is.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Agreed then..... Except he was saying the gun would be loaded.... Which would be a no go if I understand Washington law correctly.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Only if she was carrying the firearm or placed the firearm in the vehicle. Again how would the Cop develop RAS PC that the woman placed the loaded firearm in the vehicle? The Cop has no way to prove she placed the firearm in the vehicle much less a way to articulate that she placed the firearm in the vehicle. The Cop per the law could take the firearm for the duration of the stop but that is about it.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I do not think that your assessment that she was "not carrying" is legally accurate (as discussed below), although it is physically accurate.

Cops do not always have to see a misdemeanor committed prior to having a lawful right to arrest.

Not necessarily directed at Jeff, but several of you seem to have overlooked (or do not understand) what I said about the "strict liability" of the statute.
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

I continue to read 9.41.050 to be a strict liability statute.


More likely, they do understand the law, but simply do not like it and want to give you grief. I, too, have been arrested (and, curiously, convicted -- although overturned on appeal) for unlawful display. The end result was that it negatively affected the offending sergeant and cost the City of Seattle a whole BOATLOAD of money (read: tens of thousands) in the settlement.


The Keller decision is based upon well-established law and legal precedent.

Where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, a court will glean the legislative intent from the words of the statute itself. See Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 752, 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Smith v. N. Pac. Ry., 7 Wn.2d 652, 664, 110 P.2d 851 (1941). If the provision of a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005). A statutory term that is left undefined should be given its “usual and ordinary meaning and courts may not read into a statute a meaning that is not there.” State v. Hahn, 83 Wn. App. 825, 832, 924 P.2d 392 (1996). If the undefined statutory term is not technical, the court may refer to the dictionary to establish the meaning of the word. Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 144 Wn.2d 556, 564, 29 P.3d 709 (2001). In undertaking this plain language analysis, the court must remain careful to avoid “unlikely, absurd or strained” results. State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36, 742 P.2d 1244 (1987).

An analysis of the statute begins with the plain language employed by the legislature. Rest. Dev. v. Canwell, 150 Wn.2d at 682; State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). The Court’s primary goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent deriving such intent by construing the language as a whole, giving effect to every provision. J.P at 450. If the language is unambiguous, the Court is to give effect to that language and that language alone because the Court must presume the legislature says what it means and means what it says. State v. Radan, 143 Wn.2d 323, 330, 21 P.3d 255 (2001). Courts are obliged to apply the language of a statute as the legislature wrote it, rather than amend it by judicial construction. GESA Credit Union v. Mutual Life, 105 Wn.2d 248, 252, 713 P.2d 728 (1986). Clearly, where the plain words of a statute are unambiguous, a court’s inquiry is at an end. State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256, 263, 226 P.3d 131 (2010). If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and, absent legislative intent to the contrary, the rule of lenity requires a court to interpret the statute strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005).




I think that the courts see this a bit differently than you, Jeff.

The entire passenger compartment of an automobile is within the occupant arrestee’s wingspan and thus within his control. New York v Belton, 453 US 454 (1981).
The area immediately within a person’s immediate control in an automobile (the “wingspan” - an area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence) is presumptively in that person’s possession. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).


Agreed. The laws do not say that the firearm must be on your person.

Rapgood

I am going to have to disagree with you here and I do not that that lightly or often.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Rapgood

I am going to have to disagree with you here and I do not that that lightly or often.

Jeff,

I take no personal offense. I am simply relating the law as interpreted by the courts. It is not just my opinion. I read 9.41.050 to be a strict liability offense because it does not state "knowingly" or "intentionally" with respect to the "carrying" clause, thereby implicating a mens rea element; just like speeding in a motor vehicle is a strict liability offense that does not require that you are "knowingly" or "intentionally" doing so in order to be guilty of the offense. You either are committing the offense conduct or you are not, regardless of your knowledge of committing or your intent to commit the offending act.

If you disagree with the law, then I encourage you to lobby your legislators to change it! And, I'll support your efforts and contact mine!

--Rob
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Jeff,

I take no personal offense. I am simply relating the law as interpreted by the courts. It is not just my opinion. I read 9.41.050 to be a strict liability offense because it does not state "knowingly" or "intentionally" with respect to the "carrying" clause, thereby implicating a mens rea element; just like speeding in a motor vehicle is a strict liability offense that does not require that you are "knowingly" or "intentionally" doing so in order to be guilty of the offense. You either are committing the offense conduct or you are not, regardless of your knowledge of committing or your intent to commit the offending act.

If you disagree with the law, then I encourage you to lobby your legislators to change it! And, I'll support your efforts and contact mine!

--Rob

Rob I also take no personal offence, most especially not from you. I fully understand what you are saying I really do, these discussions are a great educational experience for all involved that are mature enough to simply disagree without getting all personal. My best to you sir.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Let's go back to the beginning for a moment.

Why does a LEO ask a question when they stop you? There is really no need for any dialog other than 'License and registration please' (and proof of insurance).

They ask questions to fish. They ask questions they KNOW you don't have to answer. They ask questions they know the have no standing to demand. They might even lie and say 'tail light out' and how do you defend that unless you ask 'do you mind if I get out and look?'. Now, they're not going to let you get out of the car...

BUT once you start talking, you've given up the idea of a non-concensual stop. You are allowing the officer to proceed to 'do you mind if I search...do you mind if I plant a little evidence...do you mind if I detain you because I don't like your mean mug, your skin color, your expensive car'.

EVERYONE is assuming that the good officer THINKS he's allowed, no, mandated to ask 'is there a gun in the car'. He is not and HE KNOWS IT. Even in 'must declare states' (except for one or two), the declaration is only about the possession of a valid CHL, CPL, or CCL, NOT about the gear, the location of the gear, if any.

So, IMO, it's better to answer politely with a question 'why am I being stopped' and keep repeating that.

Even better, on long trips, it's better to lock up your firearm in a container, mag out, chamber empty. That way you can say 'no sir, I am not armed'.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Rob I also take no personal offence, most especially not from you. I fully understand what you are saying I really do, these discussions are a great educational experience for all involved that are mature enough to simply disagree without getting all personal. My best to you sir.

Tip-o-the-hat!
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
That way you can say 'no sir, I am not armed'.

If you're not armed, how are you driving?! :monkey


Someone mentioned earlier automatic door locks as a possible defense to being "locked in the vehicle." Unfortunately, most cars with auto locks unlock once you put the car in Park.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If you're not armed, how are you driving?! :monkey


Someone mentioned earlier automatic door locks as a possible defense to being "locked in the vehicle." Unfortunately, most cars with auto locks unlock once you put the car in Park.


I've seen signs that say "No Shoulder Driving" too.....:p
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
Even better, on long trips, it's better to lock up your firearm in a container, mag out, chamber empty. That way you can say 'no sir, I am not armed'.

I beg to differ on this - on long trips this is Exactly why I carry in my car. If I were to get in trouble with someone (other than LEO) threatening me, I sure don't want to pull over, stop, root around in the trunk, unlock the case, load in the magazine, and then 'be prepared'.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
It's amazing that folks, gun folks, plan on being traffic-stopped, by my lights (experience), very unlikely.

(0.075 year^-1 0.000205479 day^-1 0.000008562 hour^-1 0.000005 mile^-1)

You know, I'm 36 and have never been pulled over. I have had a CDL since I was 23 and don't have so much as a parking ticket. But that doesn't stop me from having insurance, a fire extinguisher (in my new van), and other misc. "emergency" equipment. It's called being prepared for possible eventualities. I don't plan to get pulled over by a LEO and harassed about my firearm, but I do plan on being prepared in case it does ever happen.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You need to study some decision theory and von Neumann's theory of expected utility, that expected utility maximization followed from basic postulates about rational behavior.
"rational behavior"....pfft....more voodoo junk science.

There is only harmful acts, non-harmful acts...or no acts at all.

Never let your skrooling interfere with your edjumication. :rolleyes:
 

MackTheKnife

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
198
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
I'm starting to think the prudent thing is to not carry your firearm on your person while driving. In a quick access container, you are not 'armed' and have no need to inform or discuss and you won't suffer being disarmed and/or swept with your own handgun.

Not prudent. You are giving up a right on your own.

Sent from my Kindle via the NSA.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I'm starting to think the prudent thing is to not carry your firearm on your person while driving. In a quick access container, you are not 'armed' and have no need to inform or discuss and you won't suffer being disarmed and/or swept with your own handgun.

maybe in the "mid atlantic" whichever state that is it may be an issue.......

In Washington, not at all. I doubt you'll even be asked. they really can't force you to say if you're armed.....

besides, your solution can be defeated if the officer just asks "are there any weapons in the vehicle"? now you're in the same position as someone with a carry permit carrying a handgun, do you lie, tell the truth, not talk about it?

choice is yours, but your solution really isn't one if you otherwise obey the weapons law while carrying....
 
Top