| Author | Post |
|---|
kyle.huff
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 02:31 am |
|
First of all, let me say, thank you very much for this pamphlet, it is awesome and well arranged. Excellent job..
Secondly, forgive me if this has already been brought up....
In the section titled "FACTS ABOUT CARRYING A FIREARM", subsection 3 it reads:
3.) Unlawful carrying without a Concealed Pistol License
(CPL) occurs when a person carries a concealed pistol on
his person and does not have a CPL. A person may carry a
loaded firearm in a vehicle only if they have a valid CPL.
Those without a valid CPL may carry a firearm in a vehicle
only if the firearm is unloaded and in a secure wrapper or
opaque case. (RCW 9.41.050)
In bold font is the part I believe to be untrue.
RCW 9.41.050 lists no requirement for an unloaded pistol to be concealed from view unless you are leaving the vehicle. So, is this requirement listed in another unreferenced RCW? I have not been able to find anything on it - but I've spent so much time reading RCW's the last few weeks I think my ability to process legal mumbo-jumbo is about on par with my aim.. =c )
Here is the section of RCW 9.41.050 that speaks about an unloaded pistol in a vehicle by a person without a valid CPL:
(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
The key wording here being: ... leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle ....
Link to RCW 9.41.050: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
Please let me know if I am getting this wrong..
P.S., my wife hates that you have created this in color; as I use up all her printer ink! =c )
|
John Hardin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:46 pm |
|
kyle.huff wrote: Those without a valid CPL may carry a firearm in a vehicle
only if the firearm is unloaded and in a secure wrapper or
opaque case. (RCW 9.41.050)
In bold font is the part I believe to be untrue.
Here is the section of RCW 9.41.050 that speaks about an unloaded pistol in a vehicle by a person without a valid CPL:
(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
The key wording here being: ... leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle ....
Link to RCW 9.41.050: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
Please let me know if I am getting this wrong.
You're correct.
SurfJ, is this going to be changed? Just strike the "and in a secure wrapper or opaque case" part.
If there's space, you might want to add something like: A pistol left unattended in a vehicle must be hidden from sight and the vehicle must be locked; the pistol may be left loaded only if owner has a CPL.
The statute does not clearly suggest that a locked box inside an unlocked car is okay, since "locked within the vehicle" in other contexts means the vehicle itself is locked. However, the "secure wrapper" verbiage from 9.41.060 may cover that, so you might want to say: A pistol left unattended in a vehicle must be hidden from sight, and the vehicle must be locked or the pistol must be locked in a secure container; the pistol may be left loaded only if owner has a CPL.
The "closed opaque case or secure wrapper" in 9.41.060 means carrying your pistol unloaded in its plastic shipping box in your backpack or purse does not require a CPL.
Last edited on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:55 pm by John Hardin
|
Dave Workman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 566 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
John Hardin wrote:
You're correct.
SurfJ, is this going to be changed? Just strike the "and in a secure wrapper or opaque case" part.
If there's space, you might want to add something like: A pistol left unattended in a vehicle must be hidden from sight and the vehicle must be locked; the pistol may be left loaded only if owner has a CPL.
The statute does not clearly suggest that a locked box inside an unlocked car is okay, since "locked within the vehicle" in other contexts means the vehicle itself is locked. However, the "secure wrapper" verbiage from 9.41.060 may cover that, so you might want to say: A pistol left unattended in a vehicle must be hidden from sight, and the vehicle must be locked or the pistol must be locked in a secure container; the pistol may be left loaded only if owner has a CPL.
The "closed opaque case or secure wrapper" in 9.41.060 means carrying your pistol unloaded in its plastic shipping box in your backpack or purse does not require a CPL.
I am bit confused here. Are you under the impression that we can simply change the statute, "just like that?"
Or are you talking about changing the wording in some pamphlet?
|
John Hardin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 04:55 am |
|
I'm talking about changing the wording in "FACTS ABOUT CARRYING A FIREARM", subsection 3 in the Firearms Rights Pamphlet that kyle.huff was commenting on in the post immediately prior to mine.
|
curlywolf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 05:17 am |
|
I guess it's the "Old Retired English Teacher" in me, but I notice stuff. Under RCW 9.41.300-Weapons Prohibited in Certain Places..etc. in subparagraph (2) under (b) says..., except that such restrictions shall not apply to: (i) any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.70 or.... This should read 9.41.070 While reading the pamphlet, I went to the actual RCW, and there is no 9.41.70. Just a small typo, but I think it's important to be a accurate as possible.
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 05:19 am by curlywolf
|
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15th, 2009 05:19 pm |
|
Good catch! You should have been a proofreader for the Times.
Welcome to the forum.
|
noname762
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15th, 2009 11:15 pm |
|
About one week ago while perusing this forum I decided to make a phone call regarding open carry in my county. I called the Mt. Vernon Police Department at their 'non emergency' number. After talking for a few minutes to one of their commissioned officers I left my number for a call back.
The officer who returned my call is one of their newest on the force with about 1 year of service. He assured me it was NOT the habit of MVPD to hassle LAC of their right to carry openly. He did admit that if a citizen "sheep" type of individual calls 911 with a report of MWAG they would dispatch a unit to that location. Upon realizing the LAC is practicing his/her 2A right to OC that person would not be cited.
As an individual with a concealed carry permit who is unemployed at this time I find it prudent to NOT expose myself as a defender of OC or as a gun owning individual. I would like to participate in OC in my area with others of like mind but at this time I prefer to 'fly under the radar'.
I am a recently new member here and enjoy this forum very much. Today has been my first opportunity to post and in the future I hope to post more often.
|
Lank
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 11:48 pm |
|
Nice work! Some of us from CT are thinking about making a pamphlet for our state now.
|
Skycries57
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19th, 2009 07:12 am |
|
Beautiful work!
|
curlywolf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21st, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
I'm not trying to be a critic, but, are these changes we are suggesting actually being incorporated in the pamphlet? I'd really like to have a "clean" copy that I could reproduce to carry with me. Who is in charge of the modifications ??
Will this be put in a true pamphlet form and produced for sale?? I'd buy a lot of copies if they were around $.30-.50 each. Just my $.2 worth.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 22nd, 2009 06:02 am |
|
I haven't seen the OP on recently, PM him he will get the email of the PM.
I have greatly enjoyed the pamphlet and will continue handing them out I still have quite a few. It would be better to get the most accuracy as possible though.
|
M1Gunr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23rd, 2009 06:50 pm |
|
curlywolf wrote: Will this be put in a true pamphlet form and produced for sale?? I'd buy a lot of copies if they were around $.30-.50 each. Just my $.2 worth.
We have a professional printer in Seattle who prints these out on glossy paper and tri folds them for us. If you want to take the lead on the next run be my guest, the last run was 7000 copies & I did the last run. Contact me for info.
|
M1Gunr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 05:10 am |
|
Domain has been paid for and a very basic page is in place for now.....
http://www.washingtongunrights.com
|
curlywolf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 06:14 am |
|
But it still has not been corrected.
(i) any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.70 or.... This should read 9.41.070 While reading the pamphlet, I went to the actual RCW, and there is no 9.41.70. Just a small typo, but I think it's important to be a accurate as possible.
I missed this the first time by getting all focused on 9.41.70, but there is a typo in the next sentence, too. Instead of 9.41.60, it should read 9.41.060. IMHO, both changes need to be made for clarity and correctness.
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 07:57 am by curlywolf
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
And the correction to the section regarding transportation of an unloaded firearm in a vehicle by a person without a CPL needs to be corrected as well. There is no requirement for the firearm to be in a case or other secure wrapper. The firearm merely cannot be loaded and cannot be concealed on the person.
|
M1Gunr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 08:56 pm |
|
I understand the need for the changes but someone has access to the unlocked version of the PDF and that person is NOT me. I had an opportunity to register the domain name very cheaply and took advantage of it.
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 08:57 pm by M1Gunr
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 03:31 am |
|
Thanks M1Gunr, we do appreciate your efforts. Any idea how to obtain the editable .pdf file? Actually, does anyone know if the .pdf file actually contains text characters or is it an image type file?
|
curlywolf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 07:34 am |
|
| So where is surfj9009? Shouldn't he be the one with the editable file? This whole process puzzles me.
|
RichardDavies
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 08:48 pm |
|
NavyLT wrote: Any idea how to obtain the editable .pdf file? Actually, does anyone know if the .pdf file actually contains text characters or is it an image type file?
It's actual text (not just an image of text.)
|
RichardDavies
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
M1Gunr wrote: Domain has been paid for and a very basic page is in place for now.....
http://www.washingtongunrights.com
Great idea! However, I would suggest placing a link on the page to download the PDF. Also, you might want to consider placing the text from the pamphlet on the page somehow (in other words, embed the actual text in the page's HTML code). That way the site will get better search engine rankings.
P.S. I'm a web developer and would be glad to help out in any way if necessary.
|
Current time is 08:55 pm | Page:   ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
