Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81

Thread: Whatcom County Courthouse reversing decision to not require ID

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Whatcom County Courthouse reversing decision to not require ID

    Previously worked a method and agreement with the screeners, not to show ID, when checking weapon.

    Then a few months ago, he said he was concerned about me keeping the key, so we came to another agreement that he would write down first name and number and discard the paper when I return the key.

    Today, he got out a log book and wanted full name number etc., I told him I don't want to give him all that personal information, and asked about what happened to our other agreement, he lied and said he told me he would log me in every time. And also it makes him suspicious of why I wouldn't want to give him ( Olympia security) my personal information. I told him all he is getting is my first name and number and that I will take it up with his superiors, because they are not following state law.

    As I was leaving he told me the new rule is I have to have ID now or leave my weapon in the car. I asked him I don't have ID and I didn't drive who would be responsible for me being arrested for missing my court date because they are not following the law. He started rambling about how I just can't bring anything to court blah blah blah, and told me I have to take it up with his boss, Mike who runs Whatcom county facilities because he talked to Mike and this is Mike's new rule from now on no ID no checking weapon.

    I walked across the street to Mike's office he was out in a meeting in the courthouse.I left name and number to call me. He called and told me he can make stricter rules and if I don't have driver's license to go get a state ID. When I told him that the state is pretty clear on the process and that ID is not mandatory and I will not go get my "papers" he told me I would have to talk to county lawyer. I asked when he instituted this rule he said 10 years ago with advise from the county prosecutor. I asked "It was 10 years ago the prosecutor gave you that advice" was accused of twisting his words and that it was irrelevant. I told him no it wasn't because , the time line is important to me clarifying when and who gave him that advice.

    Called prosecutors office they seemed a little bit more willing to discuss the situation, and a actually concerned that because of my love of the 4th amendment and me not willing to be coerced into giving up my lawful method of carry, might cost me due process and a warrant for my arrest if I missed court. They asked how soon I need to be back and will research the issue. Wish me luck, and any talking points for the prosecutor is appreciated.

    I have another post to make it's been a busy day.
    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)

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Link to the law please.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    The law is vague about providing ID.

    I provided my WA Drivers License today, at Franklin County Courthouse, and they also demanded my CHL as well. I provided it, today, but followed that up with a phone call to the Sheriff after my meeting. He said their CHL request was incorrect. I will be following up with them soon.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    The law is vague about providing ID.

    I provided my WA Drivers License today, at Franklin County Courthouse, and they also demanded my CHL as well. I provided it, today, but followed that up with a phone call to the Sheriff after my meeting. He said their CHL request was incorrect. I will be following up with them soon.
    The statute seems pretty clear to me. There is no authority to demand identity documents, full name, or anything of that sort.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    The law is vague about providing ID.

    I provided my WA Drivers License today, at Franklin County Courthouse, and they also demanded my CHL as well. I provided it, today, but followed that up with a phone call to the Sheriff after my meeting. He said their CHL request was incorrect. I will be following up with them soon.
    Have to admit that I am a little confused.

    You have state preemption RCW 9.41.290

    The cite on lock boxes in courthouses does NOT specify ID or permit be disclosed.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

    What is vague? Would appear that any demand for either would be extra-legal.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Have to admit that I am a little confused.

    You have state preemption RCW 9.41.290

    The cite on lock boxes in courthouses does NOT specify ID or permit be disclosed.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

    What is vague? Would appear that any demand for either would be extra-legal.
    In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.
    I agree, nothing vague about it. They 'shall provide'. There's no 'if you do what they want'.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's not vague in my mind either.

    They were cooperating for over a year and now have took another stance. Even when I do carry ID (I usually carry sterile), the fourth amendment is very important to me. I simply don't feel they have the right to know who is coming and going simply because they carry a firearm.

    The main excuse they are using is they want to make sure their key is back.
    The boxes is right next to their station it is not like they won't notice the guy, retrieving his firearm.

    A sentence form our preemption statute...9.41.290

    Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
    From RCW 9.41.300

    In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.
    Now I am thinking of pushing and making them comply to another portion of the law. The block off access to the first floor even though none of the restricted areas are on the first floor, they can easily rope of the elevator area, and allow us access to the city council's chambers and tax auditors area.

    RCW 9.41.300 (on the courtroom restrictions)

    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
    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)

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building
    The fact that they are liable for the loss of a firearm, the ID requirement is most likely to make sure it is returned to the proper person. No, the law does not require ID but it also doesn't say that it can't be asked for.

    Would anyone here like to have their handgun returned to just anyone who "had the key" or claim check. What if you dropped it when getting change, etc. Without an ID requirement then the security of the firearm is flawed.

    It appears to me that they are only trying to cover their butts.
    "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?"

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The fact that they are liable for the loss of a firearm, the ID requirement is most likely to make sure it is returned to the proper person. No, the law does not require ID but it also doesn't say that it can't be asked for.

    Would anyone here like to have their handgun returned to just anyone who "had the key" or claim check. What if you dropped it when getting change, etc. Without an ID requirement then the security of the firearm is flawed.
    My reading of the Washington preemption statute says much the same as Virginia's - municipalities can only do what they are specifically allowed regarding guns.

    Possession/security of the key is IMO a straw argument that has nothing to do with the law as written. Obviously, it is to your benefit to keep the key secure, but it is NOT a requirement of law.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Agreed..., there Exists NO Law that says that They 'May' Ask for Identification, but NO Law that says that They can not Ask for it either.

    However, notwithstanding that Analysis, The Law DOES say that The Lock Boxes 'SHALL' be provided, so..., even Absent an Identification Card or Document of some sort, The Boxes MUST be provided to ALL who Lawfully Declare such Firearms or Weapons BEFORE entering such Restricted Areas of such Building.

    Either way..., Washington State is NOT a Stop and Identify State, and thus, Asking for ANY Identification Document Violates The Forth Amendment Absent a Warrant.

    A License to Carry a Concealed Handgun is ONLY needed in Washington State to either: 1. Carry a Concealed Pistol, OR 2. Carry a Pistol in a Motor Vehicle.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    Agreed..., there Exists NO Law that says that They 'May' Ask for Identification, but NO Law that says that They can not Ask for it either.
    Definitely

    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    However, notwithstanding that Analysis, The Law DOES say that The Lock Boxes 'SHALL' be provided, so..., even Absent an Identification Card or Document of some sort, The Boxes MUST be provided to ALL who Lawfully Declare such Firearms or Weapons BEFORE entering such Restricted Areas of such Building.
    Or a person designated to receive the firearm

    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    Either way..., Washington State is NOT a Stop and Identify State, and thus, Asking for ANY Identification Document Violates The Forth Amendment Absent a Warrant.
    You are not being stopped to be ID'd, you are involved in a somewhat voluntary transaction. You have the option of leaving and storing your weapon elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    A License to Carry a Concealed Handgun is ONLY needed in Washington State to either: 1. Carry a Concealed Pistol, OR 2. Carry a Pistol in a Motor Vehicle.
    Agreed. Also, a CPL is not considered a form of ID.
    "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?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Originally Posted by aadvark
    Agreed..., there Exists NO Law that says that They 'May' Ask for Identification, but NO Law that says that They can not Ask for it either.


    Sure, but at what point does ASK morph into REQUIRE?

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    How about if they "ask" you to sign in when entering and leave identification with them until you leave? The reasoning can be so sublime as to want to determine when the building is clear, it's for everyone's safety. They're not trying to exclude you, but if you do not comply then you can't come inside.

    They would be adding a new layer of rule that is not authorized by statute.

    What is the difference?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    How about if they "ask" you to sign in when entering and leave identification with them until you leave? The reasoning can be so sublime as to want to determine when the building is clear, it's for everyone's safety. They're not trying to exclude you, but if you do not comply then you can't come inside.

    They would be adding a new layer of rule that is not authorized by statute.

    What is the difference?

    Good point.

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Perhaps we are all a little paranoid. When you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras. Not every request for ID "morph's" into a demand.

    How many here fly? Do you complain about the requirement to show ID? Refuse to do so, yet still get on the plane?
    "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
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Perhaps we are all a little paranoid. When you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras. Not every request for ID "morph's" into a demand.
    When a request for ID by a representative of the government becomes a condition of something that I am legally entitled to, then yes in becomes a demand under color of law.

    I am not required to produce ID to be able to walk down the street, go into the library or to enter DMV - so why this one facility? Is is only because it is about "guns" in their back yard? If not that, then why?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Perhaps we are all a little paranoid. When you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras. Not every request for ID "morph's" into a demand.

    How many here fly? Do you complain about the requirement to show ID? Refuse to do so, yet still get on the plane?
    Getting on the plane involves a transaction between, private parties, you and the airline. Walking into a Courthouse or other public building is an interaction between the State and a Citizen, there is a difference. The WA legislature passed a law removing the ability to continue carrying a firearm into the Courthouse, they did NOT remove the citizens right to remain anonymous in the statute.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Getting on the plane involves a transaction between, private parties, you and the airline. Walking into a Courthouse or other public building is an interaction between the State and a Citizen, there is a difference. The WA legislature passed a law removing the ability to continue carrying a firearm into the Courthouse, they did NOT remove the citizens right to remain anonymous in the statute.
    Solid.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Perhaps we are all a little paranoid. When you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras. Not every request for ID "morph's" into a demand.

    How many here fly? Do you complain about the requirement to show ID? Refuse to do so, yet still get on the plane?

    Well how many times have our memebers been required to show our Ids to LEO for no good reason?

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Well how many times have our memebers been required to show our Ids to LEO for no good reason?
    I would think not ever! Consensually responding is not a requirement - it is a choice, although I suggest a poor one.

    What cite do you have for a LEO being able to legally demand paper identification from a person not breaking any laws, for no good reason?
    http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...es-states-quot

    The U.S. Supreme Court held, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), that “stop and identify” statutes are valid, but only to the limit of verbally providing the information and with RAS in accordance with Terry v. Ohio.
    http://knol.google.com/k/tom-william...8gu50dopcpx/2#
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    GS, I am siding with YOU. I think you misterpeted.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    GS, I am siding with YOU. I think you misterpeted.
    Surely did - please accept my apology.

    I am somewhat sensitized when it comes to "producing paper" - one of our own in Virginia was charged with obstruction of justice for not producing driving license AND CHP while OCing on foot on public property. He'll eventually win, but it is a major PITA meanwhile 'til the worm turns.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Wa
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    No, the law does not require ID but it also doesn't say that it can't be asked for.


    I would like to clarify. Are you stating that it's ok for "them"(county government in this case), to require citizens to provide identifying documents when the law does not require it?
    Last edited by Luke; 03-03-2011 at 07:44 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Previously worked a method and agreement with the screeners, not to show ID, when checking weapon.

    Then a few months ago, he said he was concerned about me keeping the key, so we came to another agreement that he would write down first name and number and discard the paper when I return the key.
    Let me know the next time you turn in a firearm without identifying yourself. I'll follow right on in after you, and get a free pistol by pretending to be you.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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