• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Checking in at a courthouse post I-594

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
... 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:

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
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".
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.

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.

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:

unknownsailor

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Bremerton, WA
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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 . . .
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top