Grim_Night
Regular Member
Why would judges insert words that aren't in the clear statutory language, when other laws specify "in or on" language? E.g. RCW 46.61.255 and 69.50.435, or WAC 480-30-216 (which specifically deals with transportation "in or on" motor vehicles).
This is especially relevant because it's clear the language deals with being inside a vehicle, e.g. the use of "within the vehicle." It presumably requires a concealed pistol license because a person inside a vehicle has concealed the pistol from outside view or observation, even if open carrying. The same is not true when one is "on" a vehicle, and a judge who interprets the law that way would be torturing the law as well as interpreting it in a way that is not reasonable based on the plain statutory language.
The issue is one of statutory interpretation, and our review is de novo. State v. Argueta, 107 Wash.App. 532, 536, 27 P.3d 242 (2001). Courts, when interpreting a statute, should assume the legislature means exactly what it says. Plain words do not require construction. The courts do not engage in statutory interpretation of a statute that is not ambiguous. If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself. State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001).
LINK
I think this pretty much states it all.
Last edited: