Court Opinion

ID: 9553854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:36:07.712866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:24.690241
License: Public Domain

Hale, C.J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) — I find it unrational to presume that there exists no rational connection whatever between the possession of a concealed deadly weapon and its use in the commission of a murder. *552It is a matter of common knowledge that, in most crimes committed with a pistol, the weapon remains concealed either upon the person or in a vehicle or in some close-by place until it is actually employed in the crime. The legislature, therefore, was constitutionally entitled to make these assumptions and to legislate upon the basis of them. That the Justices do not see the existence of a rational connection does not mean that the legislature could not see it, nor does it deprive the legislature of the power to presume its existence. Thus, the legislature, I think was well within its constitutional powers in enacting RCW 9.41.030 to declare that, when a person commits a crime of violence when armed with a pistol, the fact that he was unlicensed to carry it is prima facie evidence that he intended to commit the crime of violence.
The legislature, quite logically, I think, recognizes that there exists a direct rational connection between the carrying of a concealed — i.e., unlicensed — firearm and its use in crimes of violence. But in doing so, this lays down no more than a rebuttable presumption, and the defendant is at liberty to present whatever explanations he may have for carrying a concealed unlicensed pistol immediately prior to using it in the commission of an act of violence. If one does not wish to be saddled with the presumption, he has a ready remedy: not to carry a concealed pistol. By declaring a rebuttable presumption, the statute simply adds to already existing sanctions one more legitimate sanction against the illegal carrying of a deadly weapon.
I would, therefore, affirm on all counts.
Hamilton, J., concurs with Hale, C.J.
Petition for rehearing denied May 16, 1974.