It it legal to carry concealed on your property?

[Redcap]

I'll carry any goddamn way I want on my property.

 

[BsB]

Tactical Jammies!

Do they come in superman or batman themes?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[deen_ad]

They don't have a leg to stand on.

CPL is only needed for outside of your home or properties. You can carry whatever you want in your own home.

Or on your own property even outside the house, at least in WA that is.

 

[Misterbill]

AND they'[d be wrong, AND be subject to nice fat civil suit. Bring it bubblegumes.

 

[Stomper]

Believe it or not, most LEO's don't know this. And will argue you over it. They really don't like it when you point out the law to them...

Tough sheite, then they can can have it pointed out to them AGAIN in front of a judge!

 

[unklekippy]

I'll carry any goddamn way I want on my property.

If you can't tell by my posts, I'll pretty much carry any goddamn way I want in America.

This land is your land, this land is my land, but more importantly, stop treading on us, vile disgusting police state.

 

[rapgood]

I'll carry any goddamn way I want on my property.

People have been convicted in WA for the manner in which they carry on their property. State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 480 (2003).

RCW 9.41.270(1) makes exceptions only for when you are "inside your abode or fixed place of business" (which include porches and attached decks and patios). State v. Kevin Michael Haley, 35 Wn. App. 96, 665 P.2d 1375 (1983). Courts refer to “abode” to mean a singular dwelling, not a parcel of land. Salts v. Estes, 133 Wn.2d 160, 164 (1997)

 

[Steve M]

I still say the Constitution preempts it all and the politicians that voted to pass laws like that should be kicked out of the country.

 

[rapgood]

I still say the Constitution preempts it all and the politicians that voted to pass laws like that should be kicked out of the country.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out the law in Washington as it exists today.

 

[hermannr]

People have been convicted in WA for the manner in which they carry on their property. State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 480 (2003).

RCW 9.41.270(1) makes exceptions only for when you are "inside your abode or fixed place of business" (which include porches and attached decks and patios). State v. Kevin Michael Haley, 35 Wn. App. 96, 665 P.2d 1375 (1983). Courts refer to "abode" to mean a singular dwelling, not a parcel of land. Salts v. Estes, 133 Wn.2d 160, 164 (1997)

Which is why you always carry openly, in a holster on you hip. Works in WA (ID and OR too)

 

[rapgood]

This is why ( correct me if I am wrong. ) have a front fences yard even 3feet high with a locked gate :
A: now counts as your dwelling area and they can not enter past that gate without a warrant.

I was talking with some locals and they say if you have a locked gate even if they can step over it they can not as that is now assumed private.
Never asked about the concealed in the yard thing. If fact they said often times depending where you live the gate does not even have to be locked just shut.
By the same standards they can open your screen door if not locked but can not enter past without a warrant. Or probable cause.

Thats why in many areas ranchers that leave gates open are stupid cause any LE can drive right in in many places.
They can drive your who drive up to the house.

I don't know about the law in Oregon. In Washington, the boundaries pertaining to trespass differ from the boundaries of display of a weapon. Your carport is considered part of your abode for purposes of burglary (even detached), but a detached carport may not count as part of your abode for purposes of unlawful display of a weapon. Lots of grey areas up here.

 

[Botte Hork]

That's why it's not a bad idea to have a CPL. Yes, I know it's a tracking tool and unconstitutional and what not, but since we're not in Alaska, there are still a bunch of legal traps.

 

[Botte Hork]

Where do you put the gun if you sleep naked? Just sayin

Don't think the jeans are an absolute necessity, might provide some additional retention.


BTW, this is from PlayboyPenguin's YT channel, he's a legend

 

[Stevenav]

Actually on the Hypothetical, since the police have not announced their presence BEFORE knocking down the door and charging in... it's very likely that they are gonna end up with bullet holes in them. Just thought I'd point this out.

The nation wide policy is that they MUST knock and announce before entry unless they have a no knock warrant.

And even then they must (upon entry) announce they are police before they start shouting "warrant" . If they do not, they're not following proper procedure. Of course you better have them on camera or tape recording them not following procedure.

 

[Dave Workman]

That's why it's not a bad idea to have a CPL. Yes, I know it's a tracking tool and unconstitutional and what not, but since we're not in Alaska, there are still a bunch of legal traps.

WHO SAYS a CPL is "unconstitutional?"

I've never seen a court rule that way, and certainly not SCOTUS.

People tend to throw that word around without anything to support the argument. You or I may believe something to be unconstitutional but until the Supes rule that it is unconstitutional, we're essentially just blowing hot air out of our (pick a spot)

 

[Steve M]

WHO SAYS a CPL is "unconstitutional?"

I've never seen a court rule that way, and certainly not SCOTUS.

People tend to throw that word around without anything to support the argument. You or I may believe something to be unconstitutional but until the Supes rule that it is unconstitutional, we're essentially just blowing hot air out of our (pick a spot)

I don't wait for a few out of touch judges in a court room, I can decide for myself what is Constitutional and what isn't. If we all thought as you then slavery would still exist in this country and women wouldn't be able to vote. In fact, we'd all be saying "God save the Queen" because you'd be waiting for King George to give you permission to stand up on your hind legs and say "NO, I have had enough, I have rights".

 

[rapgood]

WYou or I may believe something to be unconstitutional but until the Supes rule that it is unconstitutional, we're essentially just blowing hot air out of our (pick a spot)

Out of our "Big Windbag?"

Seriously, though. You are right on the mark, Dave.

 

[unklekippy]

WHO SAYS a CPL is "unconstitutional?"

I've never seen a court rule that way, and certainly not SCOTUS.

People tend to throw that word around without anything to support the argument. You or I may believe something to be unconstitutional but until the Supes rule that it is unconstitutional, we're essentially just blowing hot air out of our (pick a spot)

I just said it was unconstitutional. Do you really not understand "Shall Not Be Infringed"? There is my support and argument. I would suggest you plug up your hot air hole and stop taking the side of the Anti'. No one in this country gets to decide who will and will not defend themselves. It's kind of disgusting that anyone, especially an esteemed gun writer as yourself, would try to tell us that anyone that wants to stop your or my right to carry overrides the Constitution.

Once again, it reads "Shall Not Be Infringed". It does not read "Shall Not Be Infringed Unless...". I am cancelling my subscription to Gun World. Your boring writing in Gun Digest already doesn't get read. Pathetic.

 

[unklekippy]

Out of our "Big Windbag?"

Seriously, though. You are right on the mark, Dave.

What mark? Again, "Shall Not Be Infringed". It just really is that simple. The Government handing out guns to those that sign up(armed forces) and handing out "permits" to those that jump through their hoops does not take away from my right. The militia spoke of is free of the state, not made of the state itself. It was put in there so that we wouldn't have to follow our oppressor's "laws" to arm ourselves. It means that we arm ourselves no matter what the state says. It keeps us armed so that we may fight the state if and when necessary. How could a provision put into place to stop the state from controlling us be so controlled by the state?

When your law professor's are progressive liberal's, this is what you end up with.

 

[hermannr]

I just said it was unconstitutional. Do you really not understand "Shall Not Be Infringed"? There is my support and argument. I would suggest you plug up your hot air hole and stop taking the side of the Anti'. No one in this country gets to decide who will and will not defend themselves. It's kind of disgusting that anyone, especially an esteemed gun writer as yourself, would try to tell us that anyone that wants to stop your or my right to carry overrides the Constitution.

Once again, it reads "Shall Not Be Infringed". It does not read "Shall Not Be Infringed Unless...". I am cancelling my subscription to Gun World. Your boring writing in Gun Digest already doesn't get read. Pathetic.

The courts argument is: There must be an unimpeded method of carry available. It does not necessarily need to be concealed, actually, up to now, the rulings have been, if you license concealed carry, you must allow unlicensed OC. Read: In re BRICKEY.

This particular ruling was in Idaho in 1902, Ohio ruled the same, and where the question has come up, state supreme courts normally go this route.