Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Thurston County Superior Court - Tumwater

  1. #1
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Thurston County Superior Court - Tumwater

    A-OK.

    Walked in, told them I needed to check a firearm, they handed me a key and advised me that the locks are finicky (worked fine for me).

    I locked it up, went in.

    Only thing that irked me in a slight manner was the insistence by the deputy/bailiff that he keep the key, he took the key out of the bin @ the metal detector and said he'd keep a hold of it. I didn't wanna argue with them, so I let it slide... and one of the deputies/bailiffs walking me out to the locker after I got done with my business, and insisting on opening it up. The demeanor of the deputy/bailiff indicated that he thought he was doing me a favor by keeping the key, and I didn't protest, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

    I was never asked for ID, one of the deputies actually smiled at me in a welcoming manner when I told him I had to check a firearm.

    Video coming up.

    I'll give them an A-, everything went as well as expected.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by mik253 View Post
    Sounds pretty good. I wonder if him holding the key is policy or not though. Seems a little strange but who knows. Them not asking you for ID is definitely a plus though!
    Might be policy but is against State law.
    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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    RCW 9.41.300 states:
    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,
    Nest time print out the paragraph from the Statute that outlines their responsibility and ask them where they are allowed to hold the key?

    It seems like they are trying to exercise as much control as possible, just to show everyone who's in charge.
    "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?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    Agreed. If we're held to the letter of the law, so must they be. They are not our authorities, they work for us. They are our servants.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    excerpt 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.

    one could argue that not giving you the key isn't strictly against the law, but rather they are choosing to do the second part of the RCW. The officer, by keeping the key, is the "designated official", and it just so happens your firearm is kept in a lock box.
    Last edited by jddssc121; 06-06-2011 at 02:24 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    RCW 9.41.300 states:


    Nest time print out the paragraph from the Statute that outlines their responsibility and ask them where they are allowed to hold the key?

    It seems like they are trying to exercise as much control as possible, just to show everyone who's in charge.

    you left out the second half of that "either" statement. see my post above.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by jddssc121 View Post
    you left out the second half of that "either" statement. see my post above.
    No, I only addressed the part that dealt with lock boxes. The "either" part regards a designated official that takes custody of the firearm if there are no lock boxes.

    If there are boxes with keys, the key is to be given to the party who's weapon is being stored.

    If there are no lock boxes there will be no key.
    "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?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    No, I only addressed the part that dealt with lock boxes. The "either" part regards a designated official that takes custody of the firearm if there are no lock boxes.

    If there are boxes with keys, the key is to be given to the party who's weapon is being stored.

    If there are no lock boxes there will be no key.
    You're reading words that aren't there . The RCW does not say there must be "no lock boxes" for the court to decided to use a "designated official".
    To say it in reverse, they can still go the "designated official" route even if there are lock boxes. Think of it this way...... if the officer said "I'm the designated official" and then took the firearm directly from you for safekeeping, and then 5 minutes later put it in a lock box.... would that be against the RCW? No, it wouldn't.
    Last edited by jddssc121; 06-06-2011 at 11:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,139
    If the 'official' keeps the key to the lockbox you may as well just lay your weapon on a table. If I do anything other than put my weapon in the box, lock it and RETAIN the key, someone else has control of it.
    "That dog don't hunt"

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by jddssc121 View Post
    You're reading words that aren't there . The RCW does not say there must be "no lock boxes" for the court to decided to use a "designated official".
    To say it in reverse, they can still go the "designated official" route even if there are lock boxes. Think of it this way...... if the officer said "I'm the designated official" and then took the firearm directly from you for safekeeping, and then 5 minutes later put it in a lock box.... would that be against the RCW? No, it wouldn't.
    Than the designated official should receive the weapon and have control of it. Because it doesn't say and or it just says "or".

    Simply put If Lock box key to owner or designated official receives weapon. Whether he puts it in a lock box or not is up to him. Also the responsibility for loss or damage is upon them.

    To me the use of "or" gives you a choice of two options in this case. E.G. Do you want a peanut butter sandwich or a tuna sandwich. I can see how slick "officials" would try to interpret some "wiggle" room though, but I doubt the wiggle room was intended when the RCW was written.
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Than the designated official should receive the weapon and have control of it. Because it doesn't say and or it just says "or".

    Simply put If Lock box key to owner or designated official receives weapon. Whether he puts it in a lock box or not is up to him. Also the responsibility for loss or damage is upon them.

    To me the use of "or" gives you a choice of two options in this case. E.G. Do you want a peanut butter sandwich or a tuna sandwich. I can see how slick "officials" would try to interpret some "wiggle" room though, but I doubt the wiggle room was intended when the RCW was written.
    Yup. The "or" does imply a choice. The choice is for the "local legislative authority" (to whom that portion of the RCW is addressed towards), not you

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by jddssc121 View Post
    Yup. The "or" does imply a choice. The choice is for the "local legislative authority" (to whom that portion of the RCW is addressed towards), not you
    Oh I no it's not for me but it is the choice the State gives the courthouse, lockbox with key to owner or designate someone to receive it.
    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)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    "That dog don't hunt"
    Where does that saying come from, and what is it meant to convey?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Where does that saying come from, and what is it meant to convey?
    http://tinyurl.com/3sntcuh

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Respectfully, what difference does it make who puts the gun in the lockbox? Sounds to me like the Thurston County Superior Court has chosen to designate an official to receive the gun. Does it really matter if you hand him your gun or hand him the key to lock box the gun is in? We keep nitpicking this to death and Thurston County could just say, "OK, want to play that game? We'll just have you give your gun to the deputy at the metal detector then, and we won't let you do anything else with it."

    At least the way they are doing business, there is still a designated official who receives custody of your gun, just like the law allows.... but at least you get to choose how gently the gun is placed in the lockbox!
    Exactly! I was trying to think of how to say that without being snarky; you've said it quite eloquently...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Respectfully, what difference does it make who puts the gun in the lockbox? Sounds to me like the Thurston County Superior Court has chosen to designate an official to receive the gun. Does it really matter if you hand him your gun or hand him the key to lock box the gun is in? We keep nitpicking this to death and Thurston County could just say, "OK, want to play that game? We'll just have you give your gun to the deputy at the metal detector then, and we won't let you do anything else with it."

    At least the way they are doing business, there is still a designated official who receives custody of your gun, just like the law allows.... but at least you get to choose how gently the gun is placed in the lockbox!
    Well, perhaps it doesn't make a difference, but my inner pessimist is wondering about custody issues and who is responsible for damage or theft. Having a designated official means the official is responsible for the weapon, both to ensure it is not lost/stolen, and to ensure it is not damaged. Putting it in a lockbox that only the weapon owner has a key to means the owner is responsible for the weapon, and unless someone takes a crowbar to the lockbox, it is presumed that any damage or loss of the weapon is the fault of the owner, because only the owner has the key.

    But what if the weapon owner puts his weapon in the box, locks it, and then surrenders the key to a designated official? Common sense would argue that the official is responsible for the weapon, but in government, you can't assume common sense even exists. The court might try to claim that a missing or damaged weapon is the fault of the owner, because the owner put it in the box and locked it. They might claim they don't use the designated official option (which might be true, if that bailiff/deputy/whatever isn't following the law or official policy, but has made up his own without telling anyone).

    If the people in charge of investigating a stolen gun believe that only the gun owner had the key to the secure lockbox the gun was placed in, they might simply refuse to take a complaint seriously. Worse, they might assume a fraud attempt, and act accordingly.

    I'm not saying that's the situation in Thurston County, but why take chances with a dangerous and fairly expensive weapon that will trace back to you if it shows up at a crime scene?

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Respectfully, what difference does it make who puts the gun in the lockbox? Sounds to me like the Thurston County Superior Court has chosen to designate an official to receive the gun. Does it really matter if you hand him your gun or hand him the key to lock box the gun is in? We keep nitpicking this to death and Thurston County could just say, "OK, want to play that game? We'll just have you give your gun to the deputy at the metal detector then, and we won't let you do anything else with it."

    At least the way they are doing business, there is still a designated official who receives custody of your gun, just like the law allows.... but at least you get to choose how gently the gun is placed in the lockbox!



    Or, if the local deli had a lunch special that said "Turkey or ham sandwich for $4.00". "I'll have a ham sandwich, please!" "I'm sorry, you can't have a ham sandwich because we still have Turkey sandwiches left...."
    Good points. That is why I posted I can see where the wiggle room is, just don't agree with the interpretation of the RCW because it is fairly specifically written. Besides the points Difdi brings out, it bothers me because supposedly I am at the courthouse because I "broke" the law, yet than they ignore certain issues. I am less worried about the key issue though, and glad they don't ask for "I.D."

    Quote Originally Posted by jddssc121 View Post
    Exactly! I was trying to think of how to say that without being snarky; you've said it quite eloquently...
    I didn't think your posts were snarky at all was enjoying the discussion and learning from your view point. Sometimes I'll stretch the subject out a little to learn more from other peoples viewpoints, even playing Devil's advocate and nit picking a little....., you'd be surprised how many times I have changed my viewpoint on certain things by doing so.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 06-07-2011 at 09:17 AM.
    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)

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    But what if the weapon owner puts his weapon in the box, locks it, and then surrenders the key to a designated official? Common sense would argue that the official is responsible for the weapon, but in government, you can't assume common sense even exists. The court might try to claim that a missing or damaged weapon is the fault of the owner, because the owner put it in the box and locked it. They might claim they don't use the designated official option (which might be true, if that bailiff/deputy/whatever isn't following the law or official policy, but has made up his own without telling anyone).
    When someone surrenders possession to the control of another without surrendering ownership, a Bailment agreement has been created. In the case of a lock box, the control follows the key. He who has the key has control. In the case where the firearm is surrendered to the official, the official has control and thus the responsibility for the well being and security of the item. Even if you place the firearm in the lock box, the party with the key is responsible, in this case the official. The law is rather clear on who is responsible for any loss or damage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment

    As an example, it has long been held that when parking a car, if you leave it with an attendant or valet, and the key remains with them, the establishment they work for is responsible for your vehicle while in their possession. If you merely park your car in a stall of a parking garage, and leave with the key in your pocket, you are responsible for the vehicle. If someone runs into it you need to seek redress on your own, the owner of the facility has no responsibility.

    In the case of the courthouse, that is under discussion, it seems ridiculous that the officials there would want to retain the key. By doing so they have taken on all responsibility for the firearm, even if someone pry's open the box and steals it. If you had the key in your pocket they could claim they never had control and weasel out of any responsibility.
    "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?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post

    In the case of the courthouse, that is under discussion, it seems ridiculous that the officials there would want to retain the key. By doing so they have taken on all responsibility for the firearm, even if someone pry's open the box and steals it. If you had the key in your pocket they could claim they never had control and weasel out of any responsibility.
    I agree I guess it's why it bothers me a little I want as much control of my self and my personal property as possible, and I think it may be why the legislature wrote the law the way they did they realized this at one time.

    I would actually like to see lock boxes similar to the post office or the old Airport ones, where you don't have to track an "official" down for a key when you are done with your business.
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post

    I would actually like to see lock boxes similar to the post office or the old Airport ones, where you don't have to track an "official" down for a key when you are done with your business.
    Yes... BUT..... if i am handling a firearm in a courthouse (even just to place or remove it from the lockbox) I much prefer to be "supervised" by a LEO standing right next to me. The last thing i want is to be standing solo with a pistol in my hand, and have some clueless LEO walk around the corner and pop 3 in my chest thinking he saved the day.
    Last edited by jddssc121; 06-07-2011 at 12:57 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by jddssc121 View Post
    Yes... BUT..... if i am handling a firearm in a courthouse (even just to place or remove it from the lockbox) I much prefer to be "supervised" by a LEO standing right next to me. The last thing i want is to be standing solo with a pistol in my hand, and have some clueless LEO walk around the corner and pop 3 in my chest thinking he saved the day.
    I do it all the time if it is obvious you are putting your gun in a lock box I don't think your scenario is likely. But looking at the actions of some cops ........

    Personally I want the least amount of intrusion as possible.
    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    93
    Mason County Courthouse in Shelton has a sign on the door restricting ANY weapons as allowed in the building. Based on previous discussions I have seen here I figured they were just unaware of the law. Upon entering the building I saw that there were NO metal detectors and the courtrooms had direct access throughout the entire blgd.

    Based on how the bldg layout was...is would absolutely be against the law to take your weapon into the bldg. As for having a place to store, or hold, your weapon one was not apparent. There was a cop shop next door...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by jddssc121 View Post
    Cute, but irrelevant. I wanted to know where (S)HE thought it came from.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJeepster View Post
    Mason County Courthouse in Shelton has a sign on the door restricting ANY weapons as allowed in the building. Based on previous discussions I have seen here I figured they were just unaware of the law. Upon entering the building I saw that there were NO metal detectors and the courtrooms had direct access throughout the entire blgd.

    Based on how the bldg layout was...is would absolutely be against the law to take your weapon into the bldg. As for having a place to store, or hold, your weapon one was not apparent. There was a cop shop next door...

    they are still required to have a place to secure the firearm *in the same building*.... cop shop next door doesn't count.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Respectfully, what difference does it make who puts the gun in the lockbox? Sounds to me like the Thurston County Superior Court has chosen to designate an official to receive the gun. Does it really matter if you hand him your gun or hand him the key to lock box the gun is in? We keep nitpicking this to death and Thurston County could just say, "OK, want to play that game? We'll just have you give your gun to the deputy at the metal detector then, and we won't let you do anything else with it."

    At least the way they are doing business, there is still a designated official who receives custody of your gun, just like the law allows.... but at least you get to choose how gently the gun is placed in the lockbox!



    Or, if the local deli had a lunch special that said "Turkey or ham sandwich for $4.00". "I'll have a ham sandwich, please!" "I'm sorry, you can't have a ham sandwich because we still have Turkey sandwiches left...."
    If they have control over the key who is to say they are not taking your weapon and running checks on it while it is in their care( 4th amendment illegal search)
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •