Its really not going to be useful. What a Governor said decades ago is going to mean nothing if some LEO wants to cite you. Showing this to them would mean nothing. The one post here was cut directly from the WA site that tells you how to get a CPL and how they work here. In RARE instances someone runs into an LEO who does not like the common folk to have a gun and or the LEO has little clue how the law works. If one decides to cite you the way to handle it is stay calm, take the citation, go to court. What too many do is get loud, try to hold court on the side of the road and this NEVER makes things better.
Just carry the gun how you want. Don't tell anyone, and no one will be the wiser. If a cop pulls you over, how would he know you have a gun unless you tell him or he sees it?
This is one of the problems with taking advice off the net for things like this. In this state if any LEO runs your name they can see you have a CPL. If they run your tags and you are the owner they can see it. Only interactions I have had in decades were a couple break downs waiting for AAA. Both time I had my CPL in hand with my ID and it was waved off. Suspect they already knew who I was. So if stopped and carrying I do not recommend leading the conversation with "I have a gun". If they ask? Tell them and see what they want you to do and of course do NOT put your hands anywhere near it as many seem to want to do for some reason I have never understood.
The conjunctive/disjunctive interpretation is hornbook law. For a summary, see Scalia and Garner's book Reading Law at page 116.
Does it cite any cases?
Make sure to reach for your Wallet swiftly and with purpose, to let the officer know you're extra ready to comply with his request to see credentials.
Moving with a purpose...I could see...swiftly...not so sure.
No cases cited. It was a clarification of the statute's language per the AGs office. It comes down to this: A, B or C. All 3 stand alone. It's pretty clear language. Maybe Dave Workman could respond to this, if someone can reach him. I've seen a post or two from him on this forum.
No swiftly anything.
It's a joke. Referencing a meme.
If the words of a late U.S. Supreme Court justice aren't good enough, see State v. Gordon, No. 82784-7-1 (February 13, 2023)(unpublished) at pages 21-22.
The book you cite is a good resource for law students, I'll give you that. In the Gordon case you cite I can't find anything that will help us interpret the RCW the OP is asking about. An opinion by the State's top legal officer, albeit from 20+ years ago, could be more helpful. Not a complete "get out of jail free" card but something potentially more relevant and tangible. I will ask the AG's office to dig it up via a FOIA request.
Let me make this easy. When the Legislature lists a series of options, or menu choices, separated by commas, and there is an "or" before the last menu option, then the statute is disjunctive. (Unless the obvious intention is otherwise). That means that any one of menu items by itself is acceptable.
Ok, thank you for the upload. You can see that it takes the Washington State Supreme Court to intepret the statute construction. So again, prime evidence that this is difficult for lay people, police and lower lever courts, certainly for Gordon's lawyers to make sense of.
