WA Fish and Wildlife proposal - ban all loaded vehicle carry

[jt59]

Agency Request

True. In this case they are asking representatives to sponsor the making of law. A law which must weave it's way throught the legislative process like any other law. The non-validity of the preemption law (in this case) has nothing to do with who asked for the new law to be considered.

The State cannot preempt itself. That would be a legal absurdity.

I believe this is also an "agency request" which would go to the Gov's office for sponsorship. If the Gov picks it up, they it will automatically get some traction....but it is a pretty high threshold to get her to do it....when is that election again? Who are we voting for?...

 

[BigDave]

I believe this is also an "agency request" which would go to the Gov's office for sponsorship. If the Gov picks it up, they it will automatically get some traction....but it is a pretty high threshold to get her to do it....when is that election again? Who are we voting for?...

Last I heard she is not running for reelection... and in this mode all bets are off when it comes to her.

 

[deanf]

And the rest of the State Government's actions are not an absurdity???

Maybe they should "preempt" themselves.

Agreed.

 

[ghosthunter]

I received this email today.




The proposed RCW change will not affect the rights of CPL holders to carry loaded pistols or handguns in a vehicle. That part of the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns.



Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045

WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &

Administrative Regulations Coordinator

Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov

360.902.2930

Fax 360.902.2155

 

[CheerfulHoplite]

I received this email today.




The proposed RCW change will not affect the rights of CPL holders to carry loaded pistols or handguns in a vehicle. That part of the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns.

Then they bloody well need to EXPLICITLY SAY SO IN THE TEXT OF THE LAW, otherwise, sure as **** stinks, it *WILL* be twisted around to be used against some poor schmuck that happens to get himself in the line of sight of some overzealous clown in a fish-n-game suit.

 

[deanf]

EXPLICITLY SAY SO IN THE TEXT OF THE LAW,

It already does.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's a stupid law, like most laws.

We need to start electing officials who want to lower the "legal" mental burden on it's citizens.

 

[amlevin]

I received this email today.




The proposed RCW change will not affect the rights of CPL holders to carry loaded pistols or handguns in a vehicle. That part of the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns.



Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045

WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &

Administrative Regulations Coordinator

Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov

360.902.2930

Fax 360.902.2155

Then they bloody well need to EXPLICITLY SAY SO IN THE TEXT OF THE LAW, otherwise, sure as **** stinks, it *WILL* be twisted around to be used against some poor schmuck that happens to get himself in the line of sight of some overzealous clown in a fish-n-game suit.

It already does.

The issue isn't what the law currently says, it's over what it will say. If they want to only regulate Rifles and Shotguns then SAY SO. Don't hide behind the generic term "Firearm". How hard would it be to just say "lawfully carried pistols, with CPL, are legal to be carried in Vehicles whether loaded or not. Methinks the law enforcement community likes to have things vague so they have more excuses to "investigate" which can often be interpreted as "search" to see what else they can come up with. On that note, how many people would actually be stopped for "burned out license plate lights" is the law said that that was all the driver could be cited for and searches of vehicles were prohibited for these stops, voluntary or not? Just another ruse. If not, then put plain language in the proposed change.