Washington Rifle in vehicle in WA ?

[Mark W.]

OK all the things that come up doing a search are old enough Washington may have changed the law three times since they were posted so I'm just going to ask.

UNLOADED lever action rifle locked in a Safe attached to the vehicle BUT accessible by the driver. Ammo in Console

Is this legal currently in Washington I am an Oregon resident

Read More

 

[ilikegunspdx]

My suggestion is read the relevant RCWs. The reason is you may get a lot of differing answers to your question.

 

[bcp]

460 and maybe others

Chapter 77.15 RCW: FISH AND WILDLIFE ENFORCEMENT CODE

050 and maybe others

Chapter 9.41 RCW: FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS

Bruce

 

[gmerkt]

Yeah, "truck guns" in Warshington are about as useful as baseball bats. When carried in accordance with state law, anyway.

However, unrelated to rifles, I've found this provision interesting:

050 and maybe others
Chapter 9.41 RCW: FIREARMS AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS

"(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."

On those few occasions when I've carried a permitted, loaded handgun in my vehicle, it's been my choice to not carry in on my person. I've placed it concealed, under my center armrests, with a shop towel laid over the gun. Yet the RCW citation above clearly states, "on the licensee's person." To me that says I should have the gun in my pocket, in a worn holster, or stuck in my waistband. I've wondered if within reach satisfied this definition.

 

[Yarome]

Technically, you're good. However, it may depend on where exactly you mean (if the vehicle has a trunk or not) and which LE officer/department you get.

If you don't have a trunk and the only option is within the passenger compartment then it sounds about right. If your rifle is in a separate locked container it is not, by legal definition, "readily accessible". Ammo stored separate is in compliance (as well as with the feeb interstate travel laws), but.... I tend to error on the side of caution whenever crossing into "enemy territory". Meaning... I would opt for ammo storage in a separate and preferably locked container... other than the glovebox or console.

The reason being: The way it's worded, a LEO bent on jamming you up "could" understand it to mean that neither the firearm NOR ammo may be in the glovebox or console... even though that provision is meant to only mean the firearm.

The other element is the whole trunk or compartment thing. While in the compartment in a locked container meets the definition of "not readily accessible", if you do have a trunk available then someone wanting to jam you up "could" try and say that you "must" use the trunk if one is available. Even though using a trunk doesn't require it to be in a locked container as well.

In this day and age... removing all doubt seems prudent, but not always practical and YMMV.


IE., I'm always going to prefer transport within the passenger compartment even if my vehicle has a trunk. That's just me.

 

[Alexx1401]

OK all the things that come up doing a search are old enough Washington may have changed the law three times since they were posted so I'm just going to ask.

UNLOADED lever action rifle locked in a Safe attached to the vehicle BUT accessible by the driver. Ammo in Console

Is this legal currently in Washington I am an Oregon resident

Legal? Yes. How else would you ever get a gun to where you were going if you could not put it in a vehicle? Now assuming said gun is not in sight and you are stopped? Don't make a point of telling them you have a gun. Many seem to want to do this for some reason that baffles me. If gun is locked up how the hell would they ever find it?

 

[Yarome]

Don't make a point of telling them you have a gun. Many seem to want to do this for some reason that baffles me. If gun is locked up how the hell would they ever find it?

True. OR and WA don't have duty to inform laws, however, there is a duty if asked... and possible consequences for knowingly making a false statement to LE.

Just to be aware.....

 

[Alexx1401]

True. OR and WA don't have duty to inform laws, however, there is a duty if asked... and possible consequences for knowingly making a false statement to LE.

Just to be aware.....

Again I don't know how you drive but, I have yet to be pulled over and have my vehicle torn apart looking. So if I am stopped and have guns which I ALWAYS do? I would say no, just to not deal with the hassle. Now those who drive in such a way that LEO's are going to tear the vehicle apart looking in locked compartments? You should not own a gun at all.

 

[Yarome]

Again I don't know how you drive but, I have yet to be pulled over and have my vehicle torn apart looking. So if I am stopped and have guns which I ALWAYS do? I would say no, just to not deal with the hassle. Now those who drive in such a way that LEO's are going to tear the vehicle apart looking in locked compartments? You should not own a gun at all.

Bruh... what a person chooses to do or what risks they are comfortable with... understanding their options and what they are likely to be able to get away with... is purely a personal choice. How I would actually reply, if asked, is my own business... and I don't necessarily disagree with you.

IMHO though, when people are asking about the laws it does them a disservice not to provide accurate info about what the law actually requires and allow "them" to make their own informed decisions for themselves.

Just sayin....

 

[Jay Walk]

Weird that a car is a gun safe, but a home is not.

Why is it important to have the lever gun and ammo within reach?
Serious question.

 

[Mark W.]

Weird that a car is a gun safe, but a home is not.

Why is it important to have the lever gun and ammo within reach?
Serious question.

Its not that its important to have it within reach its that there is no where in this vehicle that its not within reach. The vehicle is VERY small. And while I could put the ammo in another place besides the console I would have no place to lock it up when I get out of the vehicle. And this console is built heavier then most pistol safes.

Thanks guys I won't worry about dragging my "truck gun" out of the rig for the trip I have planned tonight.

 

[Val1884]

Weird that a car is a gun safe, but a home is not.

Why is it important to have the lever gun and ammo within reach?
Serious question.

You seen the land whales these days..45-70 is clearly needed in target rich environments.

 

[Camelfilter]

Again I don't know how you drive but, I have yet to be pulled over and have my vehicle torn apart looking. So if I am stopped and have guns which I ALWAYS do? I would say no, just to not deal with the hassle. Now those who drive in such a way that LEO's are going to tear the vehicle apart looking in locked compartments? You should not own a gun at all.

Last time I was pulled over ?2013 East of Salina KS. Roundtrip driving from metro Boston to Greeley CO to pickup my camper top.

Full on vehicle search by ?6 deputies (6 cruisers), which I consented to. Nothing to hide. Go rite ahead, whatever makes your job easier I said.

Pulled over for driving too close. Driving like a Mass-hole & @ interstate speed (I don't drive like such anymore).

No ticket, just a warning.

Probably wanted to search because I seemed wired (lotsa coffe, no breakfast & bad night sleep in Salina campground), I chatted about the trip (seemed odd to the deputy to do such for a camper), AND Colorado marijuana legalities (prob thought I was hauling "reefer madness").

Picked up some super nice Mil Surp that trip too.

A couple of these:



Which the deputies couldn't open (have pressure equivalence buttons). Had to do it for them. Sold one back East for a profit (under shipping cost, so fair deal).

One of the Deputies was into off highway camping, so he "got it" when I was chatting with him about the trip. Shut the "thing" down & went on my way.

Glad they didn't have me do the popup on the camper, as a wind storm was coming in. Bad at the time, & got much worse. Don't think I could have stowed the camper easily.

Anyhow, long story short. Don't drive like a dick, and you won't be pulled over...

Thanked them for there service!

 

[Nosferatu]

there is a duty if asked..

Memorize and rehearse this phrase: "I invoke my 5th amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer any questions."

As far as WA transport law: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.460

 

[Yarome]

Memorize and rehearse this phrase: "I invoke my 5th amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer any questions."

I get the point and there are idle "fishing" questions I'm not obligated to answer, and won't, but to 5th myself on a question I'm legally required to answer? To what end? Invite closer scrutiny and suspicion when none is warranted? Be an a-hole to a LEO just doing his job... because I can?

I'm more the type of person not to make my life and theirs more difficult than it has to be. Keep answers as concise and short as possible. Don't offer up any extraneous info. Ignore or respectfully decline to respond to "fishing" queries (where are you coming from, where are you headed, do you know why I pulled you over, etc etc).

There are some bad eggs, but IMHO, most of em are just trying to faithfully execute their duties and don't want to be spending any more time going about it that you do.

 

[Nosferatu]

I get the point and there are idle "fishing" questions I'm not obligated to answer, and won't, but to 5th myself on a question I'm legally required to answer? To what end? Invite closer scrutiny and suspicion when none is warranted? Be an a-hole to a LEO just doing his job... because I can?

You are not legally required to answer ANY questions from ANY officer for ANY reason.

That's not "being an a-hole", it's protecting your rights and keeping your bubblegum out of jail. You have no idea what he knows, why he's engaging with you and what their intentions are.

If "just doing his job" requires him to infringe on your rights, then his job is by definition illegal.

I'm more the type of person not to make my life and theirs more difficult than it has to be. Keep answers as concise and short as possible. Don't offer up any extraneous info. Ignore or respectfully decline to respond to "fishing" queries (where are you coming from, where are you headed, do you know why I pulled you over, etc etc).

That's your choice, but remember, a cop can legally lie to you. You cannot do the same to him. Once you start answering questions, you are under strict scrutiny and anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you in court. However, it cannot be used FOR you. Even the most seemingly benign questions and answers can trap you.

There are some bad eggs, but IMHO, most of em are just trying to faithfully execute their duties and don't want to be spending any more time going about it that you do.

Bullbubblegum. "Some bad eggs" has become the norm with hiring practices that will take any high school dropout who can fog a mirror.

Now, are there practical considerations that should be taken during a typical traffic stop, of course. However, if they start asking pointed fishing questions like "are there any guns in the car?", then I'm going to decline to answer.

 

[Mark W.]

I have a LOT of experience with being pulled over by all sorts of law enforcement so I am pretty sure I got a handle on HOW to interact with a police officer. But in at least 60 traffic stops I have never had my vehicle searched past what they could see looking through a window. From age 17 to 25 I managed to rack up about 50 entries on my driving record. And aside from being stopped in the middle of the night in a dump truck for having 4 headlites on (not on brights 2 of them are actually clear fog lights) no ticket just a verbal caution by the State Cop. I haven't been pulled over in about 21-22 years.

I been stopped for everything from Hey what you got under the hood to Speeding in a Dump truck that could not possibly have gone the speed he ticketed me for (level ground governed at 66mph gave me a ticket for 71mph in a 55mph I passed him going the opposite way at about 62 after having just made a turn. Cop lied in court. Judge gave me $20 off for finding a new way to say my car can't go that fast (I showed her the Dyno test we had done the week before the event which stated Max speed of 66mph set by governor).

 

[Yarome]

You are not legally required to answer ANY questions from ANY officer for ANY reason.

There is in fact a legal duty to answer if asked, but you're right that you "can" exercise your right to remain silent, even if the question is legally permissible.

It is against the law in Oregon for an officer to ask about weapons without articulable reasonable cause that the person may pose a threat. Asking routinely under the guise of "officer safety" is not allowed. Asking because you're dressed like a gang banger and he pulled you over coming from a known drug traffic area is also not sufficient cause to ask.

The context of my post was that we were talking about a case in which an officer is actually asking... and if he is... then it's assumed that the officer has legal cause to do so.

Like some things... if an officer has reasonable and legal cause to ask a question or ask you to submit to "whatever" then remaining silent or refusing is likely not going to be the end of it and only serves to make your life and theirs harder.

Maybe that's the best way to handle that type of situation(?) If asked... ask the officer if he has articulable cause to believe I pose a threat to be legally asking that question or not. If they backtrack the question then you're good.

Remaining silent works too, I guess. If they are just fishing they won't pursue it, and if they do have sufficient reasonable cause then it will escalate if you answer or not. If they feel they have sufficient cause they certainly aren't going to just "let it go" simply because you refuse to answer and odds are you're going to end up with less benefit of the doubt and worse off than if you had just cooperated.


Obviously, you don't, but just in my own view, I "do" consider it just being an a-hole to immediately treat an officer as the enemy. I know they are only human too, just doing a job, and being uncooperative, belligerent or hostile when there is no reasonable cause to be only serves to provoke them to act on human nature and respond in kind.

Different strokes and all that....

 

[Yarome]

Bullbubblegum. "Some bad eggs" has become the norm with hiring practices that will take any high school dropout who can fog a mirror.

I dunno. I agree there are a lot more "questionables" in LE these days, and we certainly get inundated by media propagating the "police are evil" agenda.

I kinda look at the numbers though. In the U.S. over 50million LE encounters occur each year. That works out to about 137k encounters each and every day. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if the majority of LEO's were corrupt... news outlets couldn't possibly keep up with all the murders and civil rights violations committed by LE occurring even if they broadcast only that... 24/7.

Even at a rate of only 5% could you imagine them trying to keep up with 7,000 occurrences each and every day??

I liken it more to the same thing we see with gun control. Only "criminals" use firearms against others and they make up only a tiny fraction of gun owners, yet the media would lead you to believe that every single one of the 80-124 million firearm owners in the US pose an imminent threat against public safety. Plenty of people believe that, too.

 

[Nosferatu]

There is in fact a legal duty to answer if asked, but you're right that you "can" exercise your right to remain silent,

That's contradictory.

I dunno. I agree there are a lot more "questionables" in LE these days, and we certainly get inundated by media propagating the "police are evil" agenda.

I kinda look at the numbers though. In the U.S. over 50million LE encounters occur each year. That works out to about 137k encounters each and every day. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if the majority of LEO's were corrupt... news outlets couldn't possibly keep up with all the murders and civil rights violations committed by LE occurring even if they broadcast only that... 24/7.

Even at a rate of only 5% could you imagine them trying to keep up with 7,000 occurrences each and every day??

I liken it more to the same thing we see with gun control. Only "criminals" use firearms against others and they make up only a tiny fraction of gun owners, yet the media would lead you to believe that every single one of the 80-124 million firearm owners in the US pose an imminent threat against public safety. Plenty of people believe that, too.

I'm not willing to bet my freedom on the hope that I get one of the good ones on that particular day.