Here's another interesting RCW...

[gregma]

RCW 9.41.050 in it's entirety:

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

     (b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

     (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.

     (b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

     (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.

     (b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

     (4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

Ok, this tells when you are required to have a CPL.  1(a), 2(a).  However, there is one little section that leaves a LOT open to interpretation...  That's section 1b:

and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.

First, note that some stranger off the street "ANY OTHER PERSON" is equal to a "POLICE OFFICER" when demanding to see your CPL.  Interesting, isn't it?

Second, I see no where in any RCW "when and if required by law to do so."  I see no mention of when you are required by law to actually show your CPL.  It covers when you are required to *have* it, but now when you are required to *show* it.  I think what it was supposed to say was... 

and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to have a concealed pistol license.

In other words, when you are required by law to have your CPL, you are then required by law to show it upon demand.  However, that's actually not what it says.  Can anyone find an RCW that specifies when you are required by law to show your CPL?

It's VERY curious that they say a stranger off the street has as much right demanding your CPL as a police officer.  Who the heck WRITES these things??

[joeroket]

Assuming it is a misdemeanor, it doesn't actually state the crime type for Section 1, you can ignore the request period. There is very little a private citizen can do about it and the use of force they can use is very limited.

Very interesting that they added the "any person" clause to this one.

[gregma]

Assuming it is a misdemeanor, it doesn't actually state the crime type for Section 1, you can ignore the request period. There is very little a private citizen can do about it and the use of force they can use is very limited.

Agreed.  And according to the WA AG, a LEO can not make an arrest or issue a citation based on the testimony from another.  They must personally witness the act.  So, the only way they could enforce the law is if they had the citizen demand your CPL in front of them, and have you refuse.

[joeroket]

But then the Officer would have to show that you were required by law to show it to a general citizen. Since it does not state you are required to do so by law then he could not cite you unless you refused to show it to him. At least thats the way I interpret it.

[Jered]

I'm almost tempted to go around demanding to see people's concealed pistol licenses.

 

[joeroket]

LOL. I still wonder who the "other person" really is and when does the law require you to show it to them.

[gregma]

It really boggles the mind that these are supposed lawyers that come up with this crap.  Do they not even see how stupid these laws are?  Or do they design them on purpose to be stupid so they really mean nothing and anyone can be arrested for anything at anytime and be able to say it was legal because of Their Interpretation?

[joeroket]

They probably see the cash cow they can create and look forward to milking it as a defense/prosecutor when they get out of office. What better way to fight it in court then "your honor I know what the legislative intent behind this law was as I was one that helped craft this law as a bill". That would actually be quite comical to hear in a courtroom though.

[gregma]

What boggles the mind even more is that the "causes alarm" law that we all know and "love" was crafted by a very well known "gun rights group".  Makes you wonder sometimes.

[joeroket]

Wow. That I did not know. I wonder how many of their members asked them what causes alarm. Some people never cease to amaze me.

[gregma]

Wow. That I did not know. I wonder how many of their members asked them what causes alarm. Some people never cease to amaze me.

Me either.  There is a thread somewhere over at ocdo who replied to one of my criticisms of that phrase defending it and stating that he helped to write it.  I had nothing to say back as I was amazed that someone who supposedly was a "pro-gun rights advocate" would help to craft something that could be so easily abused.  Then again, they probably feel that everyone should be hiding their weapon anyway, so if it's exposed it's wrong.

[joeroket]

I still cannot understand that line of thinking. It just amazes me that there are people that think thier way is the only way and thats the end of it.

[Euromutt]

I still wonder who the "other person" really is and when does the law require you to show it to them.

How about a gun shop employee if you want to skip the five-day waiting period? RCW 9.41.090:

(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

     (a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. [...]

Italics mine.

[joeroket]

I still wonder who the "other person" really is and when does the law require you to show it to them.

How about a gun shop employee if you want to skip the five-day waiting period? RCW 9.41.090:

(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

     (a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. [...]

Italics mine.

Ahhhh....yes you would be required to show them under law to skip the wait.
Nice call.

[gregma]

That makes sense to me!