• 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.

Whatcom County Courthouse reversing decision to not require ID

sudden valley gunner

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

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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'.
 

sudden valley gunner

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

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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

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

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.

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.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
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?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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?
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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?
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
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.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
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.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
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?
 
Top