• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Question about OC and CC

conandan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
235
Location
florida
Being that you don't need a permit to open carry here, I have a question? If you go to a business and they ask that you cover your firearm while at there business. If you do not have a Concealed license would you be breaking the law, even though you are on private property and asked by the owner or management to conceal.

I ask because I have a friend here with me and his concealed license is not honored in Washington.
 

badger54

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
130
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Yes you would be as although it's private property it's open to the public. Another thing you want to watch out for is loaded travel in a motorized vehicle as that requires a CPL in this state. Keeping the chamber empty and removing the magazine from the gun will keep you legal in a vehicle.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Being that you don't need a permit to open carry here, I have a question? If you go to a business and they ask that you cover your firearm while at there business. If you do not have a Concealed license would you be breaking the law, even though you are on private property and asked by the owner or management to conceal.

I ask because I have a friend here with me and his concealed license is not honored in Washington.

By the RCW's it appears yes, by the constitution no.

I my self don't see how the state can tell someone how to carry on private property.
 

conandan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
235
Location
florida
Thank you for the help. And I do know about the load car carry. But I have a Washington non resident permit. I got it as soon as they drop reciprocity with Florida.
 

conandan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
235
Location
florida
You want me to cover my gun? OK, it will also cover my wallet - bye!

I agree with you and with that said I have never had any issues with oc here in Washington. Just wanted to find out so if we did go somewhere that asked to cover up if my friend would be in violation of law. I thought being on private property it would be OK but it appears not to be.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
I agree with you and with that said I have never had any issues with oc here in Washington. Just wanted to find out so if we did go somewhere that asked to cover up if my friend would be in violation of law. I thought being on private property it would be OK but it appears not to be.

It is, but it isn't.

You have to understand that the law basically recognizes two types of "private" property.

1. Privately held property open to the general public, and
2. Privately held property NOT open to the general public

For the purposes of firearms law in Washington state, privately held property open to use by the general public is considered "in public".

Private property that is NOT open to use by the general public (The term "Place of Abode" is used in the RCWs to further narrow the allowance) is considered private. If you were lawfully "aboding in" a given place, you may conceal. Abode is not defined in the RCWs to my knowledge, so we have to use the common definition, which is not quite as restrictive as recognizing only YOUR house, but also not quite as forgiving as allowing you to claim you "abode" just anywhere.

As an example, claiming to abode in a hotel room or a friends home would be a reasonable use. Claiming to abode in a makeshift shelter in a park, or in your car in a parking lot, probably would not be considered to be a reasonable use by the courts, but I am not a lawyer, those are just my educated opinions.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(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.
 

conandan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
235
Location
florida
It is, but it isn't.

You have to understand that the law basically recognizes two types of "private" property.

1. Privately held property open to the general public, and
2. Privately held property NOT open to the general public

For the purposes of firearms law in Washington state, privately held property open to use by the general public is considered "in public".

Private property that is NOT open to use by the general public (The term "Place of Abode" is used in the RCWs to further narrow the allowance) is considered private. If you were lawfully "aboding in" a given place, you may conceal. Abode is not defined in the RCWs to my knowledge, so we have to use the common definition, which is not quite as restrictive as recognizing only YOUR house, but also not quite as forgiving as allowing you to claim you "abode" just anywhere.

As an example, claiming to abode in a hotel room or a friends home would be a reasonable use. Claiming to abode in a makeshift shelter in a park, or in your car in a parking lot, probably would not be considered to be a reasonable use by the courts, but I am not a lawyer, those are just my educated opinions.

Thank you for the help. I saw the law you quoted but was unsure about the fixed place of business. But I understand now it means you have to own the business.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
Thank you for the help. I saw the law you quoted but was unsure about the fixed place of business. But I understand now it means you have to own the business.

Not necessarily.

My understanding of "In the Person's Fixed Place of Business" also covers employees. This would, for example, apply to a gas station attendant, while within the gas station. This would NOT apply to say...a UPS driver who spends most of his day in his delivery truck...since the delivery truck is not "fixed".

You would probably want your employer's permission to carry to prevent being fired if found out, but my understanding of the law is that it would NOT be a crime to conceal without a permit in your "fixed place of business" even if your employer didn't give consent.

As an example of an exception that "fixed place of business" covers...

RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
<SNIP>
(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
<SNIP>
(10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
596
Location
Stanwood, WA
<snip>
Private property that is NOT open to use by the general public (The term "Place of Abode" is used in the RCWs to further narrow the allowance) is considered private. If you were lawfully "aboding in" a given place, you may conceal. Abode is not defined in the RCWs to my knowledge, so we have to use the common definition, which is not quite as restrictive as recognizing only YOUR house, but also not quite as forgiving as allowing you to claim you "abode" just anywhere.

As an example, claiming to abode in a hotel room or a friends home would be a reasonable use. Claiming to abode in a makeshift shelter in a park, or in your car in a parking lot, probably would not be considered to be a reasonable use by the courts, but I am not a lawyer, those are just my educated opinions.

A tent has qualified as an "abode" for the purposes of the RCWs and U.S. and Washington Constitutions.

My understanding of "In the Person's Fixed Place of Business" also covers employees. This would, for example, apply to a gas station attendant, while within the gas station. This would NOT apply to say...a UPS driver who spends most of his day in his delivery truck...since the delivery truck is not "fixed".

You would probably want your employer's permission to carry to prevent being fired if found out, but my understanding of the law is that it would NOT be a crime to conceal without a permit in your "fixed place of business" even if your employer didn't give consent.

That's a fairly accurate interpretation.

The Washington Legislature did not define “place of abode” used in RCW 9.41.270. In the absence of a statutory definition, the words used are given their ordinary and usual meaning. State v. Forrester, 21 Wn. App. 855, 861, 587 P.2d 179 (1978). The ordinary meaning of “abode” is “one’s home, place of dwelling, residence, and/or domicile.” Black's Law Dictionary 7 (6th ed. 1990); Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary 4 (1995). Nor did the Legislature define “dwelling.” The ordinary meaning of “dwelling” is “[t]he house or other structure in which a person or persons live; a residence; abode; habituation; the apartment of building or group of buildings, occupied by a family as a place of residence. … In criminal law, [it] means a building or portion thereof … which is intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.” Black's Law Dictionary 7 (6th ed. 1990) ; Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary 439 (1995)

(All dictionary links are to online versions, which differ slightly from the printed versions quoted as authorities, above.)
 
Last edited:

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
A tent has qualified as an "abode" for the purposes of the RCWs and U.S. and Washington Constitutions.

I figured, but wonder how far the concept of "tent" can be stretched in that definition.

You would probably know better, but I kinda doubt a few rocks, tree branches and a tarp in a city or even a state park would be considered an abode by the courts, even if it is in a park that doesn't ban transient shelters.

Perhaps it would require more than just the shelter itself to help it qualify, such as the presence of other amenities or signs of intent to make an "abode"? Perhaps it would hinge on how private (closed off from the public) that the shelter is made?

Nice to see you rapgood! :D
 
Last edited:

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
596
Location
Stanwood, WA
I figured, but wonder how far the concept of "tent" can be stretched in that definition.

You would probably know better, but I kinda doubt a few rocks, tree branches and a tarp in a city or even a state park would be considered an abode by the courts, even if it is in a park that doesn't ban transient shelters.

Perhaps it would require more than just the shelter itself to help it qualify, such as the presence of other amenities or signs of intent to make an "abode"? Perhaps it would hinge on how private (closed off from the public) that the shelter is made?

Nice to see you rapgood! :D

You pose two questions, each of which has (possibly) a different answer.

Typically, the courts will look to the "intent" of the occupier to ascertain whether the situs is an abode.

Generally, for purposes of "search and seizure," the courts will look to how readily apparent the contents of the situs are exposed to or hidden from plain view. The more hidden, the more the courts are going to view the situs as being an area where the resident has an expectation of privacy, regardless of how long the occupier intends to occupy the situs.

For purposes of RCW 9.41.270, the courts are likely to look at how "permanent" the situs appears to be in determining whether it qualifies as an "abode." A weekend tent erection is probably much less likely to be deemed an abode, whereas a summer-long tent erection will better lend itself to be deemed an abode. This may, however, be a more fluid determination if the occupier of the tent has no other residence, even if the tent is moved on a periodic basis (e.g., tent "cities" that have moved around the Seattle area over the past few years). Such determination is most likely to be made on a case-by-case basis and is likely very fact-specific.

Again, in most cases, a court will probably endeavor to determine the intent of the occupier.
 
Last edited:

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
You pose two questions, each of which has (possibly) a different answer.

Typically, the courts will look to the "intent" of the occupier to ascertain whether the situs is an abode.

Generally, for purposes of "search and seizure," the courts will look to how readily apparent the contents of the situs are exposed to or hidden from plain view. The more hidden, the more the courts are going to view the situs as being an area where the resident has an expectation of privacy, regardless of how long the occupier intends to occupy the situs.

For purposes of RCW 9.41.270, the courts are likely to look at how "permanent" the situs appears to be in determining whether it qualifies as an "abode." A weekend tent erection is probably much less likely to be deemed an abode, whereas a summer-long tent erection will better lend itself to be deemed an abode. This may, however, be a more fluid determination if the occupier of the tent has no other residence, even if the tent is moved on a periodic basis (e.g., tent "cities" that have moved around the Seattle area over the past few years). Such determination is most likely to be made on a case-by-case basis and is likely very fact-specific.

Again, in most cases, a court will probably endeavor to determine the intent of the occupier.

Nice clarification, thanks!
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
You pose two questions, each of which has (possibly) a different answer.

For purposes of RCW 9.41.270, the courts are likely to look at how "permanent" the situs appears to be in determining whether it qualifies as an "abode." A weekend tent erection is probably much less likely to be deemed an abode, whereas a summer-long tent erection will better lend itself to be deemed an abode. This may, however, be a more fluid determination if the occupier of the tent has no other residence, even if the tent is moved on a periodic basis (e.g., tent "cities" that have moved around the Seattle area over the past few years). Such determination is most likely to be made on a case-by-case basis and is likely very fact-specific.

Again, in most cases, a court will probably endeavor to determine the intent of the occupier.



A weekend tent erection is probably much more likely to fall under another exemption (outdoor activity), however I believe it would qualify as both.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
just to add a little bit of "has nothing to do with anything whatsoever," even Commifornia allows for tents to be included as a dwelling: "Any person over the age of 18 who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, and if otherwise lawful, may keep and carry a firearm or have a firearm loaded at his or her place of residence, temporary residence, campsite, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the person." http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf
 
Top