Vehicle Carry in WA?

[Skid_McCoy]

Forget it.

 

[HahnsXD]

Forget it.

Looks pretty clear to me..

(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 you have a CPL it's no problem to leave a loaded pistol in the vehicle as long as it's locked and it's concealed from outside view..

 

[Bruce]

Skid McCoy

"You were "in" the car. My point is if you leave your weapon in the car because your going into a place that doesn't allow you to carry. And regarding the Attorney Generals Office, you'll find that every district attorney and judge just MAY interrupt it differently. Best to stay out of court. "

The loaded gun locked in a vehicle (doors locked, glove box unlocked) out of view in Washington State with CCP is legal.

Bruce.

 

[Beagle]

i'll just keep mine on me. i'm not willing to lrave it up to a cop to make that judgement . a buddy of mine spent the weekend in jail because hi gun was under the seat when he was pulled over.hi gun was in a fanny pack and he had gotten off of work late.he was driving through down town tacoma when he was pulled over for a bad light. he told the officer that he had a cpl and where his gun was. they tossed him in the patrol car. i don't care what the law says.until it reaches all the officers it will stay on me. better safe than in jail

 

[tionico]

Current law - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

It better be unloaded.

not true. Read section 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

If I;ve got that piece of paper allowing me to carry concealed, I can also have a loaded weapon inside my vehicle and not on my person. Very clear.

 

[tionico]

You were "in" the car. My point is if you leave your weapon in the car because your going into a place that doesn't allow you to carry. And regarding the Attorney Generals Office, you'll find that every district attorney and judge just MAY interrupt it differently. Best to stay out of court.

again, not so. AND, the State Attorney General's opinion WILL supersede that of any local DA or judge. Case law has also upheld the opinion expressed by Ken Eikenberry, the AG who wrote the opinion. The intent of the legislature is very clear, and case law has upheld that clarity multiple times.

This sort of stupidity (on the part of our lawmakers....) is a large part of why I decided to GET my CPL. I could easily carry open, forget to unload it when I enter my car, and become a criminal inadvertently (see how stupid the lawmakers are?) Having the CPL is like a free pass. As long as it is not visible from outside the vehicle, and as long as the car is locked when I am away from it and the gun is inside it,. I've got a free pass....... worth every penny of the sixty bucks I had to grease Mama's Palm with when I played Mother May I.

 

[tionico]

i'll just keep mine on me. i'm not willing to lrave it up to a cop to make that judgement . a buddy of mine spent the weekend in jail because hi gun was under the seat when he was pulled over.hi gun was in a fanny pack and he had gotten off of work late.he was driving through down town tacoma when he was pulled over for a bad light. he told the officer that he had a cpl and where his gun was. they tossed him in the patrol car. i don't care what the law says.until it reaches all the officers it will stay on me. better safe than in jail

Yeah, Tacoma's cops are from a different planet. They are still bound by the state law, though.... and your pal has grounds for false arrest. He was legal.

Of course, a totally correct answer might have been, once he was pulled over, "I have a CPL but I am not presently carrying". Then, IF they ask "is there a weapon in the car", he must answer truthfully.... but most cops, at that point, would be looking for other issues.

SO, when he went before the judge/prosecutor on Monday, what came down? What charge did the cop lay? What did the DA and/or judge say? Was he released, charges dropped,. or was he released OR, and had to appear later?

If that had been me, once the judge and/or DA read the charges and I quote the RCW, describing HOW I am exempt on the basis of my CPL, the judge would have to toss it. At that point, I would ask the judge and DA to please inform the Tacoma PD, from the top, to properly instruct their officers on this section of law. I might also press the issue of my false arrest.

Yes, the cops aren't always right, many are frightfully ignorant. Time they gt edjummicated....... this business of cops playing hardball when they are wrong has GOT to come to a halt.

What is REALLY needed is a Real Carry law here in Washington..... anyone not debarred the use of arms by law is free to carry. No permits necessary. Not being a felon, I am already law abiding without the stupid chunk of dead tree. Mother May I... indeed!!

 

[enjr4]

I lurked through this subject when it was all hot and heavy and tried to find the AG's position online. Never did find it so decided to ask my State Senator what was the state's position.

She responded,

"Dear Edward,

Thank you for your e-mail. I had the Judiciary Committee staff attorney research this issue, and here is the response I received:

It looks like a person can carry a concealed pistol in a vehicle if they have a concealed pistol license and the pistol is carried on his or her person, the person is within the vehicle if the pistol is in the vehicle, or if the person leaves the pistol in the vehicle, it is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view.

However, there is an exception if the weapon is unloaded and contained within a closed opaque case or secure wrapper, then it does not have to be on his or her person.

Thanks again for taking the time to write. I hope this information is helpful. The relevant RCW is also provided below my signature if you want to look at the law yourself.

Sincerely,"
Bold added by me!!

So, it seems, according to the first paragraph, you can, if you have a CPL, carry the pistol off your person in your vehicle.

The second paragraph, in typical lawer fashion, seems to muddy the water. My best guess is that that paragraph is trying to say that it is ok to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL if it is unloaded and in a case you can't see through. Or, they want it both ways, ie, no answer at all!!!! So where does that leave this??????

Ed

 

[Atroxus]

I'm trying to figure out if it is legal (with a CPL) to carry your gun in your vehicle while it's not on your person, some people on other forums were giving me both answers and the law is a little confusing.
The law regarding vehicle carry reads:

After going over it several times I believe it is legal to keep my gun in my console, ect, while driving, is this correct?

My understanding is that if you have a CPL you can carry a loaded pistol on your person in a vehicle but can not leave a loaded weapon unattended, or place it anywhere other than on your person in a vehicle. Without a CPL you can not legally have a loaded firearm anywhere in or on your vehicle at any time, whether you are in the vehicle or not.

 

[TCOV]

See post #14.

 

[enjr4]

TVOC,
I agree. Until I am made to think otherwise, I will put the pistol in the console and the registration, etc., in the glove box.

Ed

 

[tionico]

I lurked through this subject when it was all hot and heavy and tried to find the AG's position online. Never did find it so decided to ask my State Senator what was the state's position.

She responded,

"Dear Edward,

Thank you for your e-mail. I had the Judiciary Committee staff attorney research this issue, and here is the response I received:

It looks like a person can carry a concealed pistol in a vehicle if they have a concealed pistol license and the pistol is carried on his or her person, the person is within the vehicle if the pistol is in the vehicle, or if the person leaves the pistol in the vehicle, it is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view.

However, there is an exception if the weapon is unloaded and contained within a closed opaque case or secure wrapper, then it does not have to be on his or her person.

Thanks again for taking the time to write. I hope this information is helpful. The relevant RCW is also provided below my signature if you want to look at the law yourself.

Sincerely,"
Bold added by me!!

So, it seems, according to the first paragraph, you can, if you have a CPL, carry the pistol off your person in your vehicle.

The second paragraph, in typical lawer fashion, seems to muddy the water. My best guess is that that paragraph is trying to say that it is ok to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL if it is unloaded and in a case you can't see through. Or, they want it both ways, ie, no answer at all!!!! So where does that leave this??????

Ed

the legislator is trying to synthesise more than one part of RCW. Read the relevant scetion, quoted somewhere above.. it says you can not do this and that, but gives an exception for holders of valid CPL.

Thus, having the Mother May I paper lets you do the things the law says you cannot, otherwise. It is very plain when you read the statutes.

Without the CPL, loaded weapons are NOT allowed in the vehicle passenger compartment, accessible to the occupants while driving. (I guess they fear freeway shootings.......)
WITH the CPL, one can have a loaded weapon ON your person, concealed within the vehicle and accessible to the driver while driving, or stored in the vehicle if not visible from outside the vehicle AND the vehicle is locked when the owner is away from the vehicle.

I will take a plain reading of the statute ahead of a lawmaker's interepretationn or understanding of it, even if that is relayed from an attorney on a legislative committe. The RCW is what the prosecuting attorney will have to carry in the court trial, that is what will rule.

 

[yubariver]

TVOC,
I agree. Until I am made to think otherwise, I will put the pistol in the console and the registration, etc., in the glove box.

Ed

What registration?

Just moved to WA. Do you have to register guns here?

 

[longcolt]

Interesting thread. Shows how even a fairly simple matter can be very confusing and misinterpreted by the police and others if the legalese is written in a manner that is about as clear as mud.

I would hate to get hauled in due to an officer being confused in the matter of whether or not the gun must be on my person. The cost in time, stress and maybe a lawyer is not worth the effort. I will pack my gun on my person while in WA state.

 

[enjr4]

Yubariver,
I was speaking of the vehicle's registration. No gun registration in WA. But, I believe they have a lot of info about you. Anything you buy from a FFL is going to be recorded someplace and the state has access to that info. Face to face sales are supposted to be done on a state provided form and kept in the sellers records (I guess forever). So no registration, but . . .

Ed

 

[tionico]

Yubariver,
I was speaking of the vehicle's registration. No gun registration in WA. But, I believe they have a lot of info about you. Anything you buy from a FFL is going to be recorded someplace and the state has access to that info. Face to face sales are supposted to be done on a state provided form and kept in the sellers records (I guess forever). So no registration, but . . .

Ed

not quite accurate.

First, no, there IS no gun registration in Washington.

Buying long guns, the standard FFL form and NICS background check is performed, the FBI are required, in nearly every case, to destroy that info within 48 hours. NO ONE can access that info, except BATF, and then only for those who are already on some watch list. State and local LEO are NOT able to access that.

Same form for handguns, same treatment as above... BUT, within Washington State, all handgun purchases through FFL Dealers MUST fill out the new white form, a state form, which has similar info.... BUT-- one copy is sent to the local chief law enforcement officer (city police chief, if within city limits, or chounty sheriff, if in county territory) for THEIR approval.... the handgun is held until that official gives approval.... except if the purchaser holds a CPL, then the transaction can proceed on given the "proceed" code from the FBI check.
Copy two of that form is forwarded, on completion of the sale, to the State Department of LIcensing for "archiving". The "word" is that this is generally not available to LEO, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest this is not true. Not sure of what REALLY happens to that "file" at DOL.

Copy three, along with the yellow FFL/FBI Background check form, is retained by the FFL Dealer for a period of at least 20 years..... or, should the dealer close his business, then surrendered to BATF. Again, in theory, no one but them, on warrant, should have access to that form. Again, anecdotal evidence hints otherwise.

As at present, private sales within the State of Washington (and ONLY between two residents of this state) are not regulated in any way, except that age and restricted sales (as to felons, etc) remain illegal, but that is true at Federal level in all sales.
Yes, the state do make available a form on which one MAY record private sales, intended as a means of retaining information on the transaction in the event it becomes important later on. (gun is stolen from purchaser, recovered at a crime scene, records bring it back to seller... if MIGHT come in handy for the seller in such cases to have a record of sale to totally turn aside any likelihood of future responsibility or liability for the weapon's illegal use. But, NOTHING is required. So far, no "gun show loophole" has been "closed", so even private sales at gun shows are totally unregulated... though most private sellers will keep SOME sort of record of who bought what, when, and where. For their own protection.

SO--- Washington remains faily unregulated..... except we DO have to play Mother May I to carry concealed on our persons, and the list of felonies and other crimes that debar some citizens the use of arms is rather over-reaching... including many "crimes" that oughtn't be considered grounds to deny purchase or carrying by otherwise law-abiding citizens. That aside, the state is overrun with whackjobs keen on restricting our ownership, possession, use of arms in ways that are totally unconstitutional and should be eliminated. For the most part, their efforts have met with dismal failure.... long may that continue. Better yet, may we soon reverse present laws that over-reach the extent of Consitutional law. I mean, on what REAL basis can any state ever require a PERMIT to arm one's self in public?

 

[Lammo]

Skid, the Attorney General Office is the supreme law enforcement agency for the state of Washington and they read RCW 9.41.050 as allowing a concealed pistol permit holder to have a loaded pistol in the vehicle without being on their person, as was the intent of the state legislature. They state that the language is interpreted in the manner that makes the most sense. I was stopped by WSP once and he asked for my pistol after seeing my permit and said nothing about it being covered by a rag on the driveline hump. I showed the leter to a county deputy and he was suprised and agreed that it was clear that it was ok to have off person. The opinion was requested by then State Senator Kent Pullen,47th District in 1987.

The AG is not, however, the Supreme Court and an AG opinion is not a binding legal authority. AGOs are helpful (see e.g. AG McKenna's on preemption re: Seattle parks ordinance) but there is no "penalty" for going against them. Also, in this instance what is being tossed around is a letter from an Assistant AG, not a formal Opinion from the Attorney General. As clear as this issue is to some it is just as confusing to many others and there is no decision form the Court of Final Error that says what RCW 9.41.050(2) actually means.

 

[Lammo]

again, not so. AND, the State Attorney General's opinion WILL supersede that of any local DA or judge. Case law has also upheld the opinion expressed by Ken Eikenberry, the AG who wrote the opinion. The intent of the legislature is very clear, and case law has upheld that clarity multiple times.

This sort of stupidity (on the part of our lawmakers....) is a large part of why I decided to GET my CPL. I could easily carry open, forget to unload it when I enter my car, and become a criminal inadvertently (see how stupid the lawmakers are?) Having the CPL is like a free pass. As long as it is not visible from outside the vehicle, and as long as the car is locked when I am away from it and the gun is inside it,. I've got a free pass....... worth every penny of the sixty bucks I had to grease Mama's Palm with when I played Mother May I.

As indicated in another comment here (#37), the letter that is being discussed is just that, a letter from an Assistant AG, not a formal Opinion of the Attorney General. Any prosecuting attorney who disagrees would be free to take a different view and act on that view, even if this were a formal AG Opinion. Don't believe me? Here it is from the horse: "The Washington Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties. While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts." (emphasis added) <broken link removed> As for the "clarity" of the case law on this issue, cite even one case, if you can.

 

[tionico]

The AG is not, however, the Supreme Court and an AG opinion is not a binding legal authority. AGOs are helpful (see e.g. AG McKenna's on preemption re: Seattle parks ordinance) but there is no "penalty" for going against them. Also, in this instance what is being tossed around is a letter from an Assistant AG, not a formal Opinion from the Attorney General. As clear as this issue is to some it is just as confusing to many others and there is no decision form the Court of Final Error that says what RCW 9.41.050(2) actually means.

Two things to add... first, there IS a body of court precedent within Washington that supports the position indicated in the letter from the AG's office... in fact, his opinion is likely derived in significant part by how courts have already interpreted and applied the law.

second, it is the burden of the Attorney General's office to press any legal proceedings arising from the perceived violation of this (or any other) law. If the AG says this is HIS interpretation of it, he will not prosecute any matters that run counter to his interpretaion. Thus, from a very practical standpoint, his opinion IS the effective law... the law that will be enforced.

AG Mc Kenna's stated opinion on the Seattle gun ban farce would have carried significant weight in any court of law, as that court now knows plainly what would, or would not, be prosecuted within this state, at least while HE holds that position. True enough, his opinion was not binding upon Seattle, but any prudent person would realise that to counter that opinion would be to invite legal trouble, and to remain within the bounds expressed would result in little chance of being prosecuted. Note, as well, that the legal action filed was a civil matter, pressing to remove or overturnn the ban. The AG's opinion that the ban was counter to Washington State Law, and illegal, is likely a significant part of the judge's decision to grant summary judgement. SHE realised that, even were she to disagree with the overturn of the ban, there would be little grounds to support her position. It was abundantly clear that the present AG's office would not be prosecuting any criminal indictments arising out of the law. The Attorney General carries far more authority than most realise.

 

[Lammo]

Two things to add... first, there IS a body of court precedent within Washington that supports the position indicated in the letter from the AG's office... in fact, his opinion is likely derived in significant part by how courts have already interpreted and applied the law.

second, it is the burden of the Attorney General's office to press any legal proceedings arising from the perceived violation of this (or any other) law. If the AG says this is HIS interpretation of it, he will not prosecute any matters that run counter to his interpretaion. Thus, from a very practical standpoint, his opinion IS the effective law... the law that will be enforced.

AG Mc Kenna's stated opinion on the Seattle gun ban farce would have carried significant weight in any court of law, as that court now knows plainly what would, or would not, be prosecuted within this state, at least while HE holds that position. True enough, his opinion was not binding upon Seattle, but any prudent person would realise that to counter that opinion would be to invite legal trouble, and to remain within the bounds expressed would result in little chance of being prosecuted. Note, as well, that the legal action filed was a civil matter, pressing to remove or overturnn the ban. The AG's opinion that the ban was counter to Washington State Law, and illegal, is likely a significant part of the judge's decision to grant summary judgement. SHE realised that, even were she to disagree with the overturn of the ban, there would be little grounds to support her position. It was abundantly clear that the present AG's office would not be prosecuting any criminal indictments arising out of the law. The Attorney General carries far more authority than most realise.

Sorry, but the AG isn't the prosecuting authority that handles misdemeanor criminal citations issued in the field by local LEOs. That falls to the county and city prosecutors working in the District and Municipal Courts. We are fortunate that AG McKenna respects the right of the people to keep and bear arms; that view does not always prevail at the local level. And again, cite me the cases on RCW 9.41.050(2). I'll give you a hint - - I've done the Westlaw search and they aren't there.