Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: King County Sheriffs Training Bulletin

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Deleted. According to Sheriff's PIO Sgt. John Urquart, the training advisory was a suggested training advisory and was never approved. I am working on clarification on the subject from the KCSO and the contact there.

    -Lonnie

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    98105, Washington, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Thanks for your diligence Lonnie!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    good job Lonnie. Did you put the content together or did KCS?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    KCS, which borrowed from Federal Way.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Is there a place on the web I can link to the document?

    I would like to post a message about it elsewhere, and refer people to it.

    Thanks!

  6. #6
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    Is there a place on the web I can link to the document?

    I would like to post a message about it elsewhere, and refer people to it.

    Thanks!
    You may link them to

    http://www.opencarry.org/pdf/KingCou...fsBulletin.pdf



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Love the choice of language - "presumably legal". Heh! Hey King Co. Deputies, it's not "presumably legal", it IS legal.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    maquimike wrote:
    Love the choice of language - "presumably legal". Heh! Hey King Co. Deputies, it's not "presumably legal", it IS legal.

    That isn’t quite what they mean. The term ‘presumably legal’ refers to the idea that unless they observe you doing something illegal while you’re armed, your carry is legal.


    To put it another way, their default position, barring their witnessing you breaking the law, should be that you are legally carrying. The opposite of that would be the example set by Tacoma Police Officer Olsen, where he felt that my carry was presumably illegal, and acted on that presumption.

    Actually, it’s not always legal. A felon would be breaking the law if he or she were carrying, open or concealed.




  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Good clarification, mainsail, thanks!

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Is anyone CERTAIN that this bulletin has been sent? The copy I downloaded is unsigned by preparer, Legal Review, etc.

    I ran into a KCSO Sergeant (who would not ID himself, merely stated he worked in the Courthouse) who claimed he had not seen this bulletin. He further stated "if a gun is not concealed, it is illegal".

    This encounter again took place at Sam's Gun Shop in the Range portion. When I mentioned the bulletin he stood fast on his opinion that open carry is illegal. When I pointed out RCW 9.41.270 language he said that it was "all handled at local level and as long as it was more restrictive than State Law it took precedent". When I advised him that there was total state preemption on firearm law he shrugged.

    After I asked for his name and where he was "stationed" he asked if I was a LEO or Lawyer. When I advised him I was not, just well read on State Law, his reply was "You Know TOO much about the Law". Very interesting position.

    Anyway, I again ask, does anyone know for sure that the "bulletin" (Title say T5 Request Form) has actually been circulated. If it has, apparently it hasn't made it to the Courthouse.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    After I asked for his name and where he was "stationed" he asked if I was a LEO or Lawyer. When I advised him I was not, just well read on State Law, his reply was "You Know TOO much about the Law". Very interesting position.
    That is absolutely priceless.

  12. #12
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    After I asked for his name and where he was "stationed" he asked if I was a LEO or Lawyer. When I advised him I was not, just well read on State Law, his reply was "You Know TOO much about the Law". Very interesting position.
    That is absolutely priceless.
    I agree... So, does that mean if I know too much about the traffic laws that he won't pull me over if I'm breaking one of them? :celebrate
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    I doubt that this Deputy will be pulling anyone over. I think that he has been relegated to the Courthouse Detail because the street is toofast for him anymore. My guess is retirement is his next "promotion".

    I think I PO'd him because he wasn't even up to date on State Preemption. He still thinks that local ordinances, as long as they are more restrictive than State law, are valid when it comes to firarms.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    That is absolutely priceless.
    Too bad it is SO common.



  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    I doubt that this Deputy will be pulling anyone over. I think that he has been relegated to the Courthouse Detail because the street is toofast for him anymore. My guess is retirement is his next "promotion".

    I think I PO'd him because he wasn't even up to date on State Preemption. He still thinks that local ordinances, as long as they are more restrictive than State law, are valid when it comes to firarms.

    Now, when you're talking about "courthouse detail", you mean King County Courthouse, right? In Seattle?

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    That's correct. In conversation he stated he spends "a lot of time listening to Lawyers give their opinions on the law".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Deleted. According to Sheriff's PIO Sgt. John Urquart, the training advisory was a suggested training advisory and was never approved. I am working on clarification on the subject from the KCSO and the contact there.

    -Lonnie
    SON OF A....

    Dang, and here I was thinking KCSO had gotten their frickin' act together.

    Well, keep us posted Lonnie, thanks again for your diligence.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

Posting Permissions

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