Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Checking in at a courthouse post I-594

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Checking in at a courthouse post I-594

    Ceding control of your firearm to a state/county/city employee in order to enter a courthouse would seem pretty transferish to me. Any legal thoughts on how this initiative will be implemented given its conflict with current state law? My town doesn't have lock boxes so I have to hand it to the City Clerk in order to go to City Council meetings.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Ceding control of your firearm to a state/county/city employee in order to enter a courthouse would seem pretty transferish to me. Any legal thoughts on how this initiative will be implemented given its conflict with current state law? My town doesn't have lock boxes so I have to hand it to the City Clerk in order to go to City Council meetings.
    How many laws are LEO allowed to ignore themselves, yet enforce on the populace.

    SNAFU

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Guess they will be forced to install lock boxes because there is a legal way for them to comply with both laws.
    On that note just took a picture of the sign at Whatcom Courthous, saying ID is required to check a weapon, contrary to the law.

    This makes Heresolong's point even more interesting, the right not to incriminate yourself yet if you show up for court and have to check a weapon, that wasn't registered with DOL in a background check as you brought out in another thread....

    This is why I hate the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    ... that wasn't registered with DOL in a background check as you brought out in another thread....
    Yep you know that's coming, registration of all pre-I594 firearms.


    Also, does this mean they've opened the door to control ranges as they once controlled liquor sales? (underlined and bold by me.)

    (f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
    domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
    firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
    authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction ...
    Last edited by jbone; 11-05-2014 at 01:11 PM.
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    I would assume this section covers those types of transfers:

    (d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;
    Also would include officer's taking peoples firearms "for their safety" on a fishing expedition and/or rights-trampling excursion.

    I'd really like the LEOs that opposed this s**t to public announce they will not enforce this "law".

  6. #6
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Ceding control of your firearm to a state/county/city employee in order to enter a courthouse would seem pretty transferish to me. Any legal thoughts on how this initiative will be implemented given its conflict with current state law? My town doesn't have lock boxes so I have to hand it to the City Clerk in order to go to City Council meetings.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    My thought may not be legal, but I bet they will have no problems at all accepting your gun from you. But to get it back you will have to pay for a background check and wait 10 days - and since the transferror has to deliver the gun to an FFL, you will have to pay an admistrative fee for them to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    Also would include officer's taking peoples firearms "for their safety" on a fishing expedition and/or rights-trampling excursion.
    That's exactly the way I read it. There is an exemption built into 594 for transfers to public officials such as police officers, but no such exemption for them handing it back to you. As written, it would seem to require a new background check every time you are disarmed for 'officer safety' or visit a court house that lacks lock boxes while armed.

    Otherwise both the officer who handed your gun back to you and you yourself (for accepting it) would become felons on the spot.
    Last edited by Difdi; 11-05-2014 at 06:37 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member unknownsailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, WA
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    That's exactly the way I read it. There is an exemption built into 594 for transfers to public officials such as police officers, but no such exemption for them handing it back to you. As written, it would seem to require a new background check every time you are disarmed for 'officer safety' or visit a court house that lacks lock boxes while armed.

    Otherwise both the officer who handed your gun back to you and you yourself (for accepting it) would become felons on the spot.
    It doesn't specify at what point they are exempt, just that they are exempt as a class of person, so I think that they can hand it back to you. This exemption would cover the TSA at SEATAC, too, but the question I have is about claiming your checked firearm at the baggage claim.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    All of the entanglements raised in this thread could be mitigated with a system whereby the gun owner places his gun into a lock box that only he holds the key to. I know this is pie-in-the-sky, but that's how they used to do it at the King County Courthouse downtown . . .

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by unknownsailor View Post
    It doesn't specify at what point they are exempt, just that they are exempt as a class of person, so I think that they can hand it back to you. This exemption would cover the TSA at SEATAC, too, but the question I have is about claiming your checked firearm at the baggage claim.
    TSA is federal so they would automatically be exempt under 594.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    All of the entanglements raised in this thread could be mitigated with a system whereby the gun owner places his gun into a lock box that only he holds the key to. I know this is pie-in-the-sky, but that's how they used to do it at the King County Courthouse downtown . . .
    +1, yet many court houses are demanding ID to check a weapon.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1, yet many court houses are demanding ID to check a weapon.
    I demand that they produce the law requiring me to even carry ID.

    "Fine, tell the judge I am here and that you will not allow me in for the hearing"

    "What is your name?

    "I am not required to tell you that."
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •