General Categories > Carry Issues
Carry in vehicle with non CHP-passengers
Gunscribe:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on June 23, 2014, 02:33:48 PM -------but considering how we've gotten this far (from where we started) we are doing it, step by step.
--- End quote ---
For those of us that have been there or nearly so from the begining (of the NFOA) it is truley amazing what has been done. I never would have believed it was possible. The momentum can only be maintained by keeping their (Unicameral) feet to the fire.
Thanks for the reminder JT!
Joe58:
I'm really interested in this topic. When I took my CHP class, I kinda argued a bit with the instructor on this one cause it just seems so ridiculous.
Not trying be be snarky here, just looking to follow their logic. To me, it seems to be the exact situation if I have four handguns in a black range bag (that just looks like a gym bag) on the back seat. I drive over to my buddies house to pick him up to go out to the range. He's a non-CHP guy.
On the way, I get stopped at a safety check, speeding, whatever. Being the good CHP holder, I mention these pistols to the officer
By their logic then, the officer could then charge my friend with concealed weapons. I really can't fathom that. So this means I cannot carry weapons in my vehicle with non-CHP holders? I drive a Dakota and I'm not going to put them in the bed. They have be be in the cab.
But if I had them out in plain sight laying on the seats we're ok? So they rather have weapons out bouncing around the vehicle rather than properly stowed?
I just think it'd be a real *expletive* of a officer to hassle people on this. Of course, assuming you're passing the attitude test to begin with.
I really think I'd have to go to a jury. I can't believe that 12 people with any common sense would uphold this.
Sorry for ranting on this....it just seems so stupid.
Joe
sidearm1:
I think many people are over thinking this. I have asked law enforcement (mainly deputy sheriff's) about this and they say no problem. They understand going to the range, they understand that the person in the seat next to you doesn't have a sidearm on in an IWB under his shirt. They understand that the weapons in the range bag are (must be-remember the range Nazis stating that the weapon has to be safe at all times it is not on your belt-in previous threads) unloaded.
Usually where the problem starts is when someone starts telling the officer that they can do whatever they want because of the 2A and everything goes downhill from there.
Use common sense, don't speed (why is it alright to break one law and not another?), treat everyone as you want to be treated.
Joe58:
--- Quote from: sidearm1 on June 27, 2014, 05:25:28 PM ---I think many people are over thinking this. I have asked law enforcement (mainly deputy sheriff's) about this and they say no problem. They understand going to the range, they understand that the person in the seat next to you doesn't have a sidearm on in an IWB under his shirt. They understand that the weapons in the range bag are (must be-remember the range Nazis stating that the weapon has to be safe at all times it is not on your belt-in previous threads) unloaded.
Usually where the problem starts is when someone starts telling the officer that they can do whatever they want because of the 2A and everything goes downhill from there.
Use common sense, don't speed (why is it alright to break one law and not another?), treat everyone as you want to be treated.
--- End quote ---
I agree with you 100% on that. I guess my question is, is this the way the law actually is?
That's the part I fund so ludicrous. That our lawmakers which are supposed to be intelligent thinking individuals would go along with something worded this way.
I'm rather late to the party here for CCW as I've always lived out in rural areas where we really don't get much hassle from law enforcement as long as you aren't being a dumb ass. I really haven't concerned myself with what is going in at the state level. My mistake obviously. But I should have known that lack of common sense isn't just limited to Washington.
I guess I just find it amazing. Anyway, as you suggested, I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing for over 50 years. :)
Bucket:
--- Quote from: Joe58 on June 27, 2014, 03:34:27 PM ---I'm really interested in this topic. When I took my CHP class, I kinda argued a bit with the instructor on this one cause it just seems so ridiculous.
Not trying be be snarky here, just looking to follow their logic. To me, it seems to be the exact situation if I have four handguns in a black range bag (that just looks like a gym bag) on the back seat. I drive over to my buddies house to pick him up to go out to the range. He's a non-CHP guy.
On the way, I get stopped at a safety check, speeding, whatever. Being the good CHP holder, I mention these pistols to the officer
By their logic then, the officer could then charge my friend with concealed weapons. I really can't fathom that. So this means I cannot carry weapons in my vehicle with non-CHP holders? I drive a Dakota and I'm not going to put them in the bed. They have be be in the cab.
But if I had them out in plain sight laying on the seats we're ok? So they rather have weapons out bouncing around the vehicle rather than properly stowed?
I just think it'd be a real *expletive* of a officer to hassle people on this. Of course, assuming you're passing the attitude test to begin with.
I really think I'd have to go to a jury. I can't believe that 12 people with any common sense would uphold this.
Sorry for ranting on this....it just seems so stupid.
Joe
--- End quote ---
That exact scenario happened to me about 2 years ago in Papillion on the way to the Bullet Hole. This was before I had my CHP, so didn't even know it was an issue. My buddy told him about the guns in the bag on the back seat in the cab and that was the end of it. He didn't even get a ticket.
Knowing what I know now, I could have been charged. I'm not sure there would have been any public purpose served by doing so.
It may have been mentioned already in this thread, but the purpose behind it was to eliminate a situation where a car full of gang bangers and felons has a weapon hidden in the console or under a seat and the one guy without a record is in the back seat with a CHP claiming it's his. Not sure if that was actually ever a problem, but that's the legislature's reasoning, as it was explained to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version