NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/seattle/general/4279

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 8.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!ole!rwing!pat
From: [e-mail] (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Displaying a weapon (was Bicycles are Vehicles)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 10:10:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 149

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>No, this law hasn't changed.  In Washington, THIS IS NOT THE LAW, and
>as far as I know it never has been.  A CCW Permit is a permit to carry
>a concealed weapon *ON YOUR PERSON*.  This does NOT include carrying it
>in a glove compartment.  In fact, a good way to get a misdemeanor
>charge slapped against you is to volunteer to a troop who is disposed
>to harass you that you have a gun in the glove compartment.  Your CCW
>Permit will not help you, and you're almost certainly going to have the
>gun seized and, depending on the local jurisdication, it will probably
>disappear into a bureaucratic black hole.  "Oh, we're going to ignore
>your right to have it returned to you." "What, you have an order from a
>judge to ordering us to return it?  Well, then, we've, let's see, oh
>yes, we've destroyed it [lost it, whatever].  That's right.  We've destroyed it.  So
>sorry.  Bye."
>
>ON THE SEAT BESIDE YOU IS *NOT* ON YOUR PERSON.

I remember things were as you describe above some years ago (in fact a
rather high-profile case brought it to the forefront).  Following this
for some years the CCWs had a little warning on them indicating that it
meant ON THE PERSON, not in the car within reach.  Last I had heard,
though was the law HAD been changed to mean a gun in a car under the
person's control was under the permit.  The change was when Kent Pullen
was still in the STATE senate, head of the Law and Justice committee,
he was instrumental in the change.  He and others had a fight with those
who preferred the laws be as confusing and contradictory as possible,
to effectively render the CCW worthless, since almost any mode of
carry could be construed to violate SOME rule.

Now, in a glovebox locked could be considered not under one's control
(since one has to get the key out of the ignition to open the box, hard
to do in most cars these days if the car is moving).  On or under the
seat, on the other hand is as accessable to the driver as wearing it.

Please, anybody who is current on the WA STATE laws covering concealed
weapons, could you clarify this?  Many carriers use either the center
console box or the map pocket in the drivers door while in the car and
have for some years.  If the STATE is going back to the bad old days
again on interpretation of the CCW laws, and doing so quietly after
allowing putting a weapon within reach in a car, a lot of CCW holders
are gonna want to know about it.  And I would not put it past the anti
CCW elements to do this such that as many legit holders as possible
could inadvertantly get caught on this, and get their CCWs yanked,
and weapon siezed.

>In fact, in Washington, a common way for the LEO's to seize your weapon
>is to stop your motor vehicle on some pretext, e.g., speeding, and
>during the course of the conversation, say "OBTW, do you have a weapon
>in the car?"  Yes, you reply.  "Where is it?"  If you do NOT reply, "On
>my person," you will probably say "Goodbye gun."  Now this has been

If it is on your person, an officer really is supposed to take possession
of the weapon while the business is being conducted, for their personal
safety, and return the weapon on completion, unloaded, ammo separate
from the gun, and ask you not reload till after they leave.  Others, if
you VOLUNTEER the fact you are armed (say 'For your personal safety, I
need to let you know I am armed, the weapon is <where it is> and the
permit is <where IT is>').  Many times they will ask you what kind it
is, maybe verify it is where you said, and leave it in your possession,
(actually going contrary to 'the book' if the LEO doesn't get bad vibes).
Letting a LEO know UP FRONT seems to get across you are aware of the
concern, and not wanting to lay a 'surprise' on him/her.  If they find
the weapon inadvertantly, the reaction will be considerably different:
Every LEO I have known personally does NOT like those kinds of surprises
(understandably - a car stop is one of the situations many LEOs get
killed, only exceeded by domestic disputes, if memory serves).

How they currently react to a gun carried with one in the car (not on
the person) I cannot personally attest to.  An update as to the CURRENT
state of the law is definitely needed here.

>ruled to be an illegal search by the US Supreme Court, i.e., a LEO may
>NOT routinely inquire regarding your possession of a firearm UNLESS he
>has probable cause to suspect that you are in violation of some law in
>which the firearm figures.  A routine traffic violation has been
>explicitly ruled by the US Supreme Court NOT to be such a violation.

I believe you will find an officer can take measures to enhance his/her
safety, including inquire as to the presence of weapons.  Especially if
the officer spots a CCW in your wallet (and you better have that with
you if you are carrying a weapon).  Note this is not the same as just
trying to find some gun law violation.  In fact, most officers I have
run across with any amount of street time SUPPORT the idea of legally
armed citizens, being well aware of how well the various laws at disarming
the law-abiding citizen 'work', toward reducing guns in hands of criminals.
Legally armed citizens are quite low on the list of headaches for most
street wise cops.  Naturally, if one comes across as a smart-ass, or
tries to get cute, the response is not going to be very pleasant.
Officers are very strong on being in control of the situation (as one
put it, it is a BAD THING to suddenly touch or grab a LEO -the penalty
is a broken arm or jaw).  Again, this comes from training, as many
attacks start as a feint of some 'friendly' or 'peaceful' gesture.

I am just bringing some of these points up as I have known some LEOs
fairly well, and while a speeding ticket, etc is not a pleasant experience,
the way one handles themself in the first few seconds of the encounter
goes a LONG way into deciding whether its a cop writing a ticket because
it is his/her job, or its gonna be a contest of wills (which the citizen
will DEFINITELY lose, at least until it gets to court).  Remember,
much of the less pleasant things a cop does is motivated from training
relating to the LEO's personal safety.   There are a number of things
one can do that will raise a bunch of warning flags to the LEO, and
once so alerted, the LEO is going to be operating on a high condition
yellow or even red mode for the duration.  Just don't do those things
that can be interpreted as a possible threat.  ESPECIALLY if you are
armed.  This might be the basis of some 'hard-ass' experiences some
folks have had dealing with LEO types.

This is not to say one can be unlucky and just run into an asshole,
though.  I ran into one a couple of years ago whose badge must have
weighed a ton.  And I think some of his behavior was racially motivated.
PROVING it might be difficult, though.  We have those in all professions.

>However, in the gun grab feeding frenzy, many LEO's and judges have
>found they can probably get away with ignoring the US Supreme Court,
>the Washington Courts, and plain as day Washington law, because Joe
>Citizen won't have the funds to fight the matter:  *They know* cheaper
>for Joe Citizen to blow off $400 than to spend $4-5000 getting their
>constitutional rights enforced.  So, what do they do?  Whatever they
>can get away with.
>
>Cynical?  No.  Realistic.

We have those kinds of LEOs and judges, no doubt about it.  And that
describes the Seattle Chief of Police quite well (a NYC import who would
like to have the Sullivan Law here, cuz it works so great in NYC), as
well as the position of the Seattle City Administration.  But I find
such street cops are not the majority of those with any amount of street
time under their belt (at least of those I have had contact with).
Judges I cannot say.  And if it does come to a contest between the STATE
and Joe Shmoe, if one does not have deep pockets, or a pressure group
with deep pockets backing one, one is definitely screwed - meaning if
you are not a member of a group considered fashionable these days, you
better have lots of bucks and time, or just cut your losses and get on
with life.

>A good layman's reference on Washington Gun Laws is Marty Hayes,
>"Understanding Washington Gun Laws" (or a title quite close to this).
>
>Stay low.  Keep moving.  Watch your six.

Always good advice.

--
[e-mail]                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"