open carry

[OrangeIsTrouble]

Unloaded in a holster. Big no no. Unloaded in a case you cannot see. Big yes yes. Unloaded in a holster in a case you cannot see?

 

[joejoejoe]

I can see where the possession definition would definitely override that exception, though. Kinda lame wording in my opinion.

It seems like ALL those exceptions apply to the possession of a pistol EXCEPT number 9. Number 9 is talking about carrying a pistol. So if you read it properly it would say:

RCW 9.41.240
Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.

Unless you are carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

(1) In the person's place of abode;
(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(3) On real property under his or her control.

Kinda iffy I guess...

 

[joejoejoe]

Unloaded in a holster. Big no no. Unloaded in a case you cannot see. Big yes yes. Unloaded in a holster in a case you cannot see?

Well what is a "secure wrapper?"

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

Well what is a "secure wrapper?"

Something that shall not let your pistol slide out accidentally! Secure is the key word!

I mean it ain't like I posted up a guide or anything for this....it's not like I "carry" this way every single day...

 

[joejoejoe]

Something that shall not let your pistol slide out accidentally! Secure is the key word!

I mean it ain't like I posted up a guide or anything for this....it's not like I "carry" this way every single day...

YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE TO ME!!! You said open carry is a big no no, but that "secure" is the key word. You also said it's not like you "carry" this way every day... which makes me think you DO carry that way every day. Which makes me wonder, are you under 21? Anyways, as an English freak (when I feel like it), it would definitely seems like you can OC at 18 if you have your weapon is a holster (secure wrapper) and it is unloaded.

Joe~

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

I am 19.
I pack heat ever-reeee-daayyyyy.
But I do not carry in a holster unless I am going to or from (during) an outdoor recreational activity.
For all the other times, I have this super cool NCSTAR pistol case. It's a soft case with a zipper, I just slide my heat in there unloaded and I am set to goooooooooooooo.


And this is legal for meeeeeeeee.

 

[devildoc5]

YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE TO ME!!! You said open carry is a big no no, but that "secure" is the key word. You also said it's not like you "carry" this way every day... which makes me think you DO carry that way every day. Which makes me wonder, are you under 21? Anyways, as an English freak (when I feel like it), it would definitely seems like you can OC at 18 if you have your weapon is a holster (secure wrapper) and it is unloaded.

Joe~

Joe3 I think the "illinois carry laws" are more applicable to 18-20 age group here in WA.

It must be "in a secured opaque container" Think pistol case, tool box, or the "federal regulations for interstate transport of a firearm"...

A holster is completely different as it does not "completely encompass" it thus it is not a "secured opaque container"

Hope this helps to clarify...

Added :

con·tain·er (k

n-t

n

r)
n. 1. A receptacle, such as a carton, can, or jar, in which material is held or carried.

 

[BigDave]

I can see where the possession definition would definitely override that exception, though. Kinda lame wording in my opinion.

It seems like ALL those exceptions apply to the possession of a pistol EXCEPT number 9. Number 9 is talking about carrying a pistol. So if you read it properly it would say:

RCW 9.41.240
Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.

Unless you are carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

(1) In the person's place of abode;
(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(3) On real property under his or her control.

Kinda iffy I guess...

Your Wording in Red

No if you read it properly it reads as the RCW is, we do not get to twist the wording around as the antis like to do with the 2nd Amendment switching where comas are placed to change the meaning.

The unaltered RCW is

RCW 9.41.240
Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.

Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

(1) In the person's place of abode;

(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or

(3) On real property under his or her control.

[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]

 

[joejoejoe]

Your Wording in Red

No if you read it properly it reads as the RCW is, we do not get to twist the wording around as the antis like to do with the 2nd Amendment switching where comas are placed to change the meaning.

The unaltered RCW is

RCW 9.41.240
Possession of pistol by person from eighteen to twenty-one.

Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

(1) In the person's place of abode;

(2) At the person's fixed place of business; or

(3) On real property under his or her control.

[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]

I know what it says, and I am not twisting the wording. I copy/pasted that from the other RCW. I was only putting it there and excluding the original text so that people could understand how I was reading it.

One of the exceptions (number 9) says that it does not apply to people over the the age of 18 if it is unloaded and in a secure wrapper. So I just replaced the wording "unless an exception" and put the actual exception in there to read "unless you are carrying a pistol..."

So then it seems anyone 18-20 can carry unloaded in a nice little case with a zipper or whatnot and be within their rights. GreenIsFaster clarified what secure wrapper meant. That's all I was asking about.

Joe~

 

[BigDave]

I know what it says, and I am not twisting the wording. I copy/pasted that from the other RCW. I was only putting it there and excluding the original text so that people could understand how I was reading it.

One of the exceptions (number 9) says that it does not apply to people over the the age of 18 if it is unloaded and in a secure wrapper. So I just replaced the wording "unless an exception" and put the actual exception in there to read "unless you are carrying a pistol..."

So then it seems anyone 18-20 can carry unloaded in a nice little case with a zipper or whatnot and be within their rights. GreenIsFaster clarified what secure wrapper meant. That's all I was asking about.

Joe~

This is the issue I have in doing this type of creative editing, someone new or passing through reads your post and instead for doing their own research and take it as fact thus more erroneous information floating around out in the abyss.

There is no issue of stating of how you read it but it was done in a way to mimic the law and well it is not.

 

[dizzle2]

This is the issue I have in doing this type of creative editing, someone new or passing through reads your post and instead for doing their own research and take it as fact thus more erroneous information floating around out in the abyss.

There is no issue of stating of how you read it but it was done in a way to mimic the law and well it is not.

well thats their fault. it is up to the individual to make the final decision on how the want to take the provided insight

 

[devildoc5]

This is the issue I have in doing this type of creative editing, someone new or passing through reads your post and instead for doing their own research and take it as fact thus more erroneous information floating around out in the abyss.

There is no issue of stating of how you read it but it was done in a way to mimic the law and well it is not.

Who died and made you the forum police???

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

Why dont you do us all a favor and just stop trying to be confrontational.

 

[BigDave]

Oh did I step on your toes because you want to be the forum police :lol::lol::lol:

 

[gogodawgs]

Remember....

State v. Seiyes...

The WA Supreme Court is very open to those under 21 having the right to bear arms. Read the decision, basically, if the appelant would of made the argument those under 21 might be able to carry. Pay particular note to footnote 22 below.

Tellingly Sieyes fails to provide convincing authority supporting an orginal
meaning of the Second Amendment, which would grant all children an unfettered right
to bear arms. In fact during oral argument Sieyes’s counsel conceded the opposite.
Furthermore Sieyes makes no adequate argument specific to the facts of this case that
a 17-year-old’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms has been violated by​

this statute.21 Similarly Sieyes mentions the statute restricting children from

possessing firearms violates his right to bear arms under article I, section 24, ​

but cites no authority and makes no argument for this proposition.

22 Sieyes’s objection may be that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, and his right to bear arms should be equal to that of an 18-year-old’s, but his arguments fail to challenge the statutory age limit set by this statute. In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington’s limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.23

22
Appellant could have made this argument by analyzing the issue under [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Gunwall. For example he might have provided evidence of a historical tradition in Washington of 17-year-olds possessing or using firearms for defense of themselves or the state, or of background legal principles to that effect.​

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Trigger Dr]

Devildoc,
You were not on the forum when Bigdave joined in. I was and he and I had a very heated PM. Bigdave does indeed come across rather brash at times, but I think that is just him. He, on the other hand provides valid and useful information.
You would do well to cool your jets a bit.

 

[gogodawgs]

Devildoc,
You were not on the forum when Bigdave joined in. I was and he and I had a very heated PM. Bigdave does indeed come across rather brash at times, but I think that is just him. He, on the other hand provides valid and useful information.
You would do well to cool your jets a bit.

+1

 

[joejoejoe]

Woah wiggity woah! First off, I do not mean to be offensive in any way, so I hope that is not where all this is leading to. Secondly, BigDave, if someone were to stumble upon my edited post (where I said "if read properly" in regards to my edit: which was to mean "if read with my edit." and was clearly seen as otherwise), the only harm it would do is that they would think the ONLY exception was carrying it in a secure wrapper. When really, there are multiple exceptions. The forum's rules and common sense dictates that one should NOT get their advice from forum jabber. Rather, they should research the RCWs on their own. That is why I ask everyone to cite their claims when things are not clear.

I do see your point, so thank you for clarifying it. Hopefully anyone who read this does not stop reading at my first post

Joe~

 

[dizzle2]

Devildoc,
You were not on the forum when Bigdave joined in. I was and he and I had a very heated PM. Bigdave does indeed come across rather brash at times, but I think that is just him. He, on the other hand provides valid and useful information.
You would do well to cool your jets a bit.

yup iv'e sorta came to that conclusion now.lol. Its all good though