Courts, encounters with locking up pistols while visiting.

[MSG Laigaie]

.... From what I understand the law says no such ID is required.

From a pure liability standpoint I can see them not liking the idea of being responsible for a firearm if someone just leaves it there and forgets about it. ]

1. This is Truth!

2. If a weapon sits in a locker, alone, only accompanied by the bullets in his magazine, and is forgotten, it will still be harmless. It will not go off by itself (well, maybe a Nambu would) and will cause no harm. The PD is not responsible for your weapon, only to give you a place to store it. Only a dumb PD would actually assume responsibility for an unknown weapon. YMMV


When I go into the B'ham CH, I just go to the box and put my weapon in it. I do not ask permission, I do not provide ID.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Not quite. Rather, the law simply doesn't say there is any such requirement, so that those running the court facilities who add on additional requirements are simply doing it outside the law, with no legal authority.

Not quite. The state law says it's law preempts all others in the state, it then spells out specifically what they are to do. So not only are they doing it outside the law without legal authority they are breaking the law. :lol:

When I go into the B'ham CH, I just go to the box and put my weapon in it. I do not ask permission, I do not provide ID.

You're welcome....

 

[Geerolla]

I've never been to Lynnwood court or pd but from google maps it appears they are 2 different building so not only did the pd make an epic fail so did the poster.

They're in the same building.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[BigDave]

They're in the same building.
Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Thanks for your reply it is appreciated.

I still have a question on this issue of being in one building as to does one have to go outside to enter the other or is the egress and digress through the same entrance?

If there are separate entries then the courts must have lock boxes and the pd lock boxes would be considered in a different building according to RCW 9.41.300

In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.

The RCW that covers the PD and jails is different

RCW 9.94.043 Deadly weapons — Possession on premises by person not a prisoner — Penalty.

A person, other than a person serving a sentence in a penal institution of this state, is guilty of possession of contraband on the premises of a state correctional institution in the first degree if, without authorization to do so, the person knowingly possesses or has under his or her control a deadly weapon on or in the buildings or adjacent grounds subject to the care, control, or supervision of a state correctional institution. Deadly weapon is used as defined in RCW 9A.04.110: PROVIDED, That such correctional buildings, grounds, or property are properly posted pursuant to RCW 9.94.047, and such person has knowingly entered thereon: PROVIDED FURTHER, That the provisions of this section do not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the correctional institution premises, proceeds directly along an access road to the administration building and promptly checks his or her firearm(s) with the appropriate authorities. The person may reclaim his or her firearm(s) upon leaving, but he or she must immediately and directly depart from the premises.

Possession of contraband on the premises of a state correctional institution in the first degree is a class B felony.

 

[Alpine]

Here is my experience from Federal Way Municipal Court today.

We had to go to get some forms and so some requests pending an upcoming hearing. I decided this would be a good time to see if they comply with state law and store my firearm.


The entrance to the court is around the far side of the building, near the back. We walked around there. Before going through the metal detector, I told the woman manning the checkpoint that I needed a locker to store my weapon. She told me that I would have to walk over to the police department and have them do that. Although it was a long walk around the outside of the building, technically it was the same building, so far I think they are still acting within the statute.

I get over to the PD and a receptionist asks me what I need. I tell her and she acts very surprised and has me wait a few minutes. She comes back and says she needs to get an officer to come do it for me and that it has been a long time since anyone has ever requested it, and she had to pull out a binder and ask someone what to do...

The officer, B. Hatfield, comes into the lobby area and asks me where my gun is. He tells me to hold my arms up in the air and he removes the gun from my jacket and then unloads it in front of me. Not sure if this is allowed under the RCW...

He then has me walk back over to the window while he goes back into the secure portion of the PD. He has my gun on the other side of the window and then asks me for ID and my CPL. I didn't want to get into a fight and was under a time schedule so I just gave it to him. he pulls out a binder and opens it to a spreadsheet with one other entry on it, and starts putting info from my IDs on it, as well as my serial # from my gun.

Then he says that he will put the gun into a locker in the back. He would not allow me to go to the locker, see the locker and when I told him the RCW said they should give me the key he claimed that was merely an option, and because he was an officer securing it that he didn't have to give me the key. He did tell me which locker number it was, then he took the firearm and went into a back room that I could not see.

Half an hour later I came back and requested my firearm returned. The woman made me wait while she went and got another officer who checked my ID and made me sign my name on the last field of that spreadsheet, WHICH GAVE ME FULL ACCESS TO VIEW THE OTHER ENTRY AND PREVIOUS PERSON'S INFO WHO THEY SUBJECTED TO THIS. Which means the next person who comes along will see my info as well...

So I am thinking of writing a letter to the city about this. Who would I address this to? The mayor? The PD? The court?

Second, which parts of this interaction, if any, do you guys think violated state law?

 

[1245A Defender]

Wow!!!

years ago bremerton library checked out books with a spread sheet...
Just get in line behind the pretty girl you would like to stalk,,,
then read her name address phone no.,,, and what books she likes!
I made them change that!!!!

When you signed to retrieve your gun,,, did they check your ID again???
Otherwise, you could read the other name,,,
have just about anybody come in and sign to retrieve that gun too!

The ID, CPL check is the illegal part..

 

[Alpine]

Yes, they checked both ID and CPL on drop off and pick up.

 

[BigDave]

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:

(b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).

In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.

 

[Alpine]

Yeah, I know the RCW, I carried a copy of it with me. He argued that because the officer option was written the way it was, that he could do those things: reaching into my jacket, making me show IDs, not giving me the key, etc.

 

[BigDave]

The law provides for them to provide a lock box with a key OR a person to provide for safe keeping and nothing more.

The other issue which I believe you're looking for a more in-depth answer for seems to me unless there it's probable cause they have no powers to require I'd or a cpl unless you're carrying concealed or in an area requiring a cpl as an requirement that would otherwise be restricted. If they are taking responsibility of safe keeping then no key is required.

Personally providing ID to ensure having my property returned with out delay I really don't have an issue with. But requiring a CPL when not required to have one on your person is going beyond the scope of the law.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

 

[kparker]

Yeah, I know the RCW, I carried a copy of it with me. He argued that because the officer option was written the way it was, that he could do those things: reaching into my jacket, making me show IDs, not giving me the key, etc.

You need to read it more carefully, including that short word OR in there:

"In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, OR shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."

If they're using the second option, there is no box and thus no key.

I'd be very up for an addition to this section that specifies that the receiving officer is not allowed to unload or otherwise operate the firearm, nor to request a CPL if the person did not arrive carrying concealed. Any further removing of this song-and-dance is troubled by the fact that (a) you're giving your property into the care of another person who will have it out of your sight, and (b) you and they (well, the honest 'they's at least) have a very strong interest in proving that you received back the same piece of property that you gave into their care.... That goes to what Dave just said: THEY want to assure themselves that they are giving the gun back to the same person that checked it in.

Really, just abolishing the 'officer to hold' option would be the best, except what if the storage lockers are all filled up at the time you arrive?

 

[Freedom1Man]

You need to read it more carefully, including that short word OR in there:

"In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, OR shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."

If they're using the second option, there is no box and thus no key.

I'd be very up for an addition to this section that specifies that the receiving officer is not allowed to unload or otherwise operate the firearm, nor to request a CPL if the person did not arrive carrying concealed. Any further removing of this song-and-dance is troubled by the fact that (a) you're giving your property into the care of another person who will have it out of your sight, and (b) you and they (well, the honest 'they's at least) have a very strong interest in proving that you received back the same piece of property that you gave into their care.... That goes to what Dave just said: THEY want to assure themselves that they are giving the gun back to the same person that checked it in.

Really, just abolishing the 'officer to hold' option would be the best, except what if the storage lockers are all filled up at the time you arrive?

No need for ID just use a digital camera and verify the picture upon returning your property.
That should be very understandable.

 

[kparker]

Yeah, right.

Not sure you you *record* the "I looked at the picture of the guy that we took when he dropped off the handgun and it sure looked like the same person" aspect.

 

[Alpine]

You need to read it more carefully, including that short word OR in there:

"In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, OR shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."

If they're using the second option, there is no box and thus no key.

I'd be very up for an addition to this section that specifies that the receiving officer is not allowed to unload or otherwise operate the firearm, nor to request a CPL if the person did not arrive carrying concealed. Any further removing of this song-and-dance is troubled by the fact that (a) you're giving your property into the care of another person who will have it out of your sight, and (b) you and they (well, the honest 'they's at least) have a very strong interest in proving that you received back the same piece of property that you gave into their care.... That goes to what Dave just said: THEY want to assure themselves that they are giving the gun back to the same person that checked it in.

Really, just abolishing the 'officer to hold' option would be the best, except what if the storage lockers are all filled up at the time you arrive?

I've read the statute, the 2nd option doesn't mean there can't be a lockbox and key, it means that if an officer is securing it, apparently in practice the officer can do anything he wants with it, like putting it in a box with a key and keeping the key.

 

[kparker]

OK, sure, it doesn't mean there can't be, but there's absolutely no requirement for there to be.

 

[mikeyb]

Aren't laws spelled out to prohibit actions? Anything not prohibited is permissible, no?

The vagueness of the law is what needs to be changed.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,,

Sooo 6 months ago I went to Mason co court house in Shelton.
Told the deputy, I need to store my gun,
He got a token, took me to the boxes, opened the door,
told me to place my property in the box,
he locked the door, and gave me the key...

When I left, I told them I had a key and I want my stuff,
He took me to the box, took the key, opened the door,
and told me to retrieve my property...

Just as pretty and straight forward as that,,, Full compliance with 9.41.300


Sooo today I went to the same place,
Told the deputy, I need to borrow a lock box.
He gives me a token, points to the area where lock boxes are located.
I go by myself, store my gun, take the key.
I put my things in the basket for the trip through the metal detector,,, but
the deputy reaches out to me for the key, but says i get it back after my trip...
I passed my exam, the key was put right into my hand,,, I told the cops, I feel pretty.. dont know why...

When I left I waived the key to the guard and said seeya,
opened the box, got my gun, and walked out into that cold mean world that I reject...

Again,, in full compliance with the statute,,,, But...

I liked it better when the cop watched what I put in the box,
and again when he watched to see that I removed all the things in the box..

Some folks wondered if folks would put worthless things in the box, then steal the key!
I also wondered if a bad guy might put a dangerous thing into the box,,
maybe with a timer to inflict pain and hurt or destruction to the people or building..

I get to go again in 2 weeks,,, I think I will make my feelings known to them

 

[mikeyb]

Some folks wondered if folks would put worthless things in the box, then steal the key!
I also wondered if a bad guy might put a dangerous thing into the box,,
maybe with a timer to inflict pain and hurt or destruction to the people or building..

I get to go again in 2 weeks,,, I think I will make my feelings known to them

I think that'd be a very small percentage. Smaller than being involved in a school shooting. Shipping UPS/FedEx/Private Carrier is a lot more simple and anonymous than going to a courthouse with cops and cameras.

Thinking of what "might" happen is exactly how our rights get trampled and taken away. Don't bring it up.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Went to the Seattle municipal court yesterday.

I only went OC there to have better control over what is going on.

I went in and tried hailed the guard to let him know I needed to check my pistol.

They wanted a CPL from me, "I told that since I was OC I did not need a cpl."
Fine then we need some ID from you.
I told them that there is no law requiring me to have ID
I was told that they had no way of knowing who to return the weapon to without my having ID. I ended up using my student ID and it worked.
They then put my name on a sheet of paper and the locker number on it and then gave me a receipt with the locker number on it so I could claim my pistol upon my departure.

The guard claimed that I had said that I don't have a CPL/ID when I simply said that there is no law requiring me to have those.

I learned that it is some idiot/corrupt black robe that created the collection if ID policy.

When I retrieved my pistol I simply gave them the receipt, and I received my pistol without them even asking for ID at this point. They had removed my pistol from the holster and unloaded it. It was, at least, not zip-tied. I was forced to go out onto the sidewalk to reload and re-holster my pistol. The whole going outside thing to re-arm was not a happy feeling.

I have an audio of this encounter that I plan on having up later tonight.

 

[CitizenJohn]

While at the kitsap county courthouse the other day I asked if they had lock boxes for firearms. And the guy insisted on ID and then I placed the pistol along with my extra mag in the box he locked it I held my hand out for the key. He said they keep the key because if I lost it they would have to replace the locker. I reminded him of the state law and he told me If I didn't like the rules don't carry A gun.

RCW 9.41.300 (1) (b) has an "either/or" provision: "In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."

Another way of looking at it is: In your example, an official was designated to receive your weapon and their safekeeping method ("method" not being specified in the RCW) was to keep it locked up in a box and keep the key. I don't see anything in the RCW that prevents that. In other words, I don't think the RCW infers that if there is a lockbox with a key, then the person checking the gun MUST be given the key and an official CANNOT be designated to receive your weapon OR have a choice of the safekeeping method. They could also require you to physically hand your gun to them, upon which they could then put your gun in the same lockbox and keep the key. In your example, they are just allowing YOU to place the gun in their "safekeeping method" instead of them doing it ... a safer way to go.

Other facilities do not designate anybody and give the key to the person checking the gun.

Requiring an ID to check the weapon is bogus. The Clark County main courthouse requires a DL and CHL and keeps the key. They also require that the CHL be left in the lockbox with the gun. The security officer performs a information cross-check between the two licenses as if he were a LEO.

Although not required by RCW, if I came across a situation where "an official was designated to receive [my] weapon," I think it would be prudent to comply with a request to give them my name and contact information on a piece of paper to be stored with my weapon and for me to provide some sort of ID (or verbal ID challenge) to retrieve the weapon upon leaving. How else could we be sure that someone else not be given the weapon?

IMHO