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.

mik253 said:

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!

Click to expand...

Might be policy but is against State law.

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,

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

jddssc121 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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"

jddssc121 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

jddssc121 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MSG Laigaie said:

"That dog don't hunt"

Click to expand...

Where does that saying come from, and what is it meant to convey?

Tawnos said:

Where does that saying come from, and what is it meant to convey?

Click to expand...

http://tinyurl.com/3sntcuh

NavyLCDR said:

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!

Click to expand...

Exactly! I was trying to think of how to say that without being snarky; you've said it quite eloquently...

NavyLCDR said:

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!

Click to expand...

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?

NavyLCDR said:

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...."

Click to expand...

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."

jddssc121 said:

Exactly! I was trying to think of how to say that without being snarky; you've said it quite eloquently...

Click to expand...

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.....:lol:, you'd be surprised how many times I have changed my viewpoint on certain things by doing so.

Difdi said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.