King County Sheriffs Training Bulletin

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

imported post

Thanks for your diligence Lonnie!

imported post

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

imported post

KCS, which borrowed from Federal Way.

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!

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!

Click to expand...

You may link them to

http://www.opencarry.org/pdf/KingCountySheriffsBulletin.pdf

imported post

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

imported post

maquimike wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Good clarification, mainsail, thanks!

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.

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.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely priceless.

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.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely priceless.

Click to expand...

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

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.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

That is absolutely priceless.

Click to expand...

Too bad it is SO common.

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.

Click to expand...

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

imported post

That's correct. In conversation he stated he spends "a lot of time listening to Lawyers give their opinions on the law".

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

Click to expand...

SON OF A....

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

Well, keep us posted Lonnie, thanks again for your diligence.