Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How hard would this law be to get?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Ok so why would this be a hard law to get passed? "Anywhere that a firearm is restricted, i.e. federal building, courthouse, etc, then lock boxes will be provided for legal carriers of firearms."

    Reasoning:
    It is harder to steal a weapon from a lock box in a courthouse then the glovebox of a car... ask Chief Gil.

    This came up in discussion over some of the smaller PD stations, and Court houses And USCG base in seattle, demanding you leave it in the car. And then it is more likely to be stolen.

    SARCASM ON: Also can you imagine Wal Mart managers... *Ah you can't have that in here while shopping...* * Sure ok, where is our lockers?* Wal Mart providing Gun Lockers...SARCASM OFF:

    No but really it came up in relation to the USCG base. Had to take a CG member down for a prescription. Since I carry, I have to leave it in the car and park the car on Alaskan Way S outside of the homeless shelter.

    No Lockers, No Parking, No exceptions,

    If this was to work, the facility provides a locker, they record your ID for a key, Lock the gun up, retrieve it upon leaving.

    That would make the streets safer, less guns stolen from cars.

    Now I can understand the not wanting to give up your id for a illegal detainment, but if you are following the law i.e. restrict firearm access and you want to use the lock boxes instead of your car to store your weapon, it shouldn't be a big deal to have your basic info recorded.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    The facility provides locker, you trade a ID for a key,
    Hold on there! What's this "trade ID for a key" business???

    1. I might need my ID for whatever business I'm doing at the place.
    2. Who's business is it who I am, if all I'm trying to do is comply with their no-weapons/lockbox regimen?
    One other point to consider: the lockbox setup itself is of no value in protecting the visitors from harm, if its purely voluntary. The only real security setup worth its salt is the one that actually have at all the large-county courthouses: lockboxes plus metal detectors to have some chance at finding those who don't comply.




  3. #3
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    While I think this would be a great thing.....

    USCG Seattle is a federal facility as are fedralbuildings and any Washington law like this would not apply there. The state won't be able to pass a law requiring a specific action by the federal government or it's various departments.

    I also don't see them trying to pass such a law requiring private property owners to do this either since it would override private property rights.

    So, to answer your question on how hard it would be... it would be easier to get Mayor Nickles to use his head for more than a hat rack.


    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    PA already dioes this - mandatory for courthouses to provide storage.

  5. #5
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    PA already dioes this - mandatory for courthouses to provide storage.
    Washington courthouses are also required to do this. The suggested law would require far more than that.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    How hard would it be?

    1) Lockboxes for any government building that prohibits carry -- possible, but difficult. If Nickles wants no guns in his city facilities, however, this might be the concession.

    2) Lockboxes for private property that bans firearms -- will never happen.

    3) Lockboxes for federal facilities -- possible, but not through state statute. This would have to be federal legislation, and given the current administration, would be near impossible.

    It's not a bad idea, but would really only work with government buildings (including municipalities, counties, etc.)

    Charles

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:
    How hard would it be?

    1) Lockboxes for any government building that prohibits carry -- possible, but difficult. If Nickles wants no guns in his city facilities, however, this might be the concession.
    But right now WA does not ban carry in govt. buildings - do not concede that issue - keep carrying, don;t ask for lock boxes.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    While I think this would be a great thing.....

    USCG Seattle is a federal facility as are fedralbuildings and any Washington law like this would not apply there. The state won't be able to pass a law requiring a specific action by the federal government or it's various departments.

    I also don't see them trying to pass such a law requiring private property owners to do this either since it would override private property rights.

    So, to answer your question on how hard it would be... it would be easier to get Mayor Nickles to use his head for more than a hat rack.

    Kind of like RCW 9.41.300's prohibition of carry in bars, regardless of the owner's opinion on the matter?


    The way I'm reading the inquiry of the OP, the question deals with making lock-boxes a mandatory provision of law for every restricted location listed in RCW 9.41.300, not just courthouses and jails as the current law proscribes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    If you read the entire OP he specifically mentions Wal Mart.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    It was intended to require lock boxes where ever you are leagally restricted from carrying a firearm into a building.

    I am not so much against the whole guns in bars thing, Alcohol and guns, usually don't go well.

    Yes I mentioned WalMart. It was intended as sarcasm. Orig post edited for sarcasm.

    And yes USCG is federal and it wouldn't apply there, that I understand, I worked for them for two years.

    But that was what started the conversation originally. This is NOT aimed at concedeing anything, but there are restricted buildings that still DO NOT have an area to lock up a weapon where the building demands that you leave it in your car.

    And yes this would be in addition to metal detectors. There are still court houses, etc, through out Washington that have metal detectors but NO lock boxes.

    "Trade an ID for the key" Ok was intended to be aimed at having your ID recorded and getting a key. Not nesasarily handing off you WDL or CPL, since not everyone has one.

    This is taking into a account that this is done under the law. Even with this setup there can be problems. I'll give you a very personal example.

    When I check my pistol in at the seattle court house, it goes into the locker as is, and comes out the same.

    Example 1: 5 years ago I had to check my Glock 31 into a lock box at a Seattle Hospital when i had a relitive dying. I had known ahead of time I would have to do this so I was using a item called a Safe T Mag. Basically a 10 rnds mag with a combo lock on the bottom. When LOCKED the gun is completely non functional and the mag can not be removed. Slide won't actuate, trigger won't pull etc.

    Little desrip on the Gun, The Glock has polished slide flats and cromed accents, and green fiber optic sights. It's an eye catcher.

    So I checked in with the supervisor, and he took me to the locker, locked the mag in, placed it in the safe, and off to the dying relitive. When I retieved the Glock in the morning the frame was gouged, the grip was shattered, and split with pieces broken out of the grip. The Safe T Mage was still in place and functional.

    Turns out "Thier" resident Obsessive Compusive Disorder gun nut had taken the gun from the locker and wanted to have a look, to "Make it Safe" he tried to remove the magazine. When that didn't work he got obsessed with "Making it safe to be in the hospital" and went at it with a slot screwdriver and broke it to pieces. It took a month but the hospital ended up losing the case, and they paided everything to have it fixed.

    Example 2:
    Couple of years ago, a friend left his off duty Glock in his car over night, that night the car was broken into, and it was stolen. 3 weeks later, a 6 year old girl was shot and killed with the gun by the meth head that stole it and was trying to shoot his dealer for ripping him off and couldn't hold the gun steady enough.

    It isn't a perfect system, but in the end I would rather have a broken gun then the gun ending up in the hands of a criminal and killing an innocent with it.



Posting Permissions

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