Grant County District Court

BigDave · Feb 5, 2012

If this is all you have to whine about! then things are looking pretty good.
This type of thing really makes one look like a crying baby over spilled milk, one round out of the chamber, really!

Stretch · Feb 5, 2012

BigDave said:
If this is all you have to whine about! then things are looking pretty good.
This type of thing really makes one look like a crying baby over spilled milk, one round out of the chamber, really!

Actually, it is more than that.

Grant County is not following the prescribed procedures spelled out in the RCW's. Checking a weapon in a building not part of the courthouse. Beyond that, they are handling my firearm out of my view to "rendering it safe". It was holstered and perfectly safe without them touching it. Would they be liable for damages? Yes. However, they are introducing the possibility of a negligent discharge by unholstering and handling my firearm.

BigDave · Feb 5, 2012

Stretch said:
Actually, it is more than that.

Grant County is not following the prescribed procedures spelled out in the RCW's. Checking a weapon in a building not part of the courthouse. Beyond that, they are handling my firearm out of my view to "rendering it safe". It was holstered and perfectly safe without them touching it. Would they be liable for damages? Yes. However, they are introducing the possibility of a negligent discharge by unholstering and handling my firearm.

Other then the issue of not checking the firearm with in the same building is pure speculation on your part, where does it prohibit them from unloading the firearm?
With your position then anytime you handle your firearm to unload or load you are introducing a negligent discharge as well, do not assume they are ignorant of handling firearms safely.
I do prefer I only handle the firearm but that is not a requirement of the RCW.

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.

Did you get a key after securing the firearm?

I have yet to have an issue with my firearm being unloaded in the course of checking prior to entering the court areas.

Last December 2011 I was able to get Yakima County to come into compliance with checking of firearms at the County Jail to include their Video Visiting Center so you are preaching to the choir here when it comes to this topic. Note this was not covered under 9.41.300 but 9.94.043

gogodawgs · Feb 5, 2012

Dave,

While I don't agree that they should handle the firearm my biggest concern is what happens when I pick up my firearm. The county is not providing a safe area/environment for a citizen to reload and re-holster their firearm.

BigDave · Feb 5, 2012

gogodawgs said:
Dave,

While I don't agree that they should handle the firearm my biggest concern is what happens when I pick up my firearm. The county is not providing a safe area/environment for a citizen to reload and re-holster their firearm.

There is no argument there Nick, it is an issue of what is required and what they do, unless spelled out in law it is left to interpretation on how the local authorities apply policy.
Unless one finds an official able to make changes are in your corner likely there will be no advancement in this issue and the likelihood of having a firearms bill changed or added are slim do to the make up in Olympia, maybe someday it will change and my hopes are sooner then later.

Just pick your battles wisely, picking at the smaller points when larger battles are to be fought, often brings more road blocks.

Stretch · Feb 5, 2012

BigDave said:
There is no argument there Nick, it is an issue of what is required and what they do, unless spelled out in law it is left to interpretation on how the local authorities apply policy.
Unless one finds an official able to make changes are in your corner likely there will be no advancement in this issue and the likelihood of having a firearms bill changed or added are slim do to the make up in Olympia, maybe someday it will change and my hopes are sooner then later.

Just pick your battles wisely, picking at the smaller points when larger battles are to be fought, often brings more road blocks.

The only issue I will address with GC is their requirement to leave the courthouse to check my firearm. The rest, I agree, is up to interpretation and I believe should be clarified at some point. When that will be, I don't know. I also agree with Nick, that we are left to find a proper (or responsible) place to reload our weapon, and doing so in the sheriff's office would probably be frowned upon if not worse.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 5, 2012

amlevin said:
It would be easier to show that there is no law preventing them from doing so. Remember that we here always argue that if something is not prohibited by law then it's allowed. Same for them as for us.

deanf said:
Not really. "Them" is the state. The state has only those powers we delegate to it. The state has no rights.

The sovereign individual has the right to do anything unless specifically prohibited by law. The subordinate state has only the powers we specifically delegate to it.

Quoted and Bolded for truth.
The statist thinking the "authorities" can do anything if not spelled out is plain wrong.

Difdi · Feb 6, 2012

gogodawgs said:
While I don't agree that they should handle the firearm my biggest concern is what happens when I pick up my firearm. The county is not providing a safe area/environment for a citizen to reload and re-holster their firearm.

Would drawing the firearm the moment it is returned to you, loading it then immediately reholstering it run afoul of RCW 9.41.270 (1)? And given that an unloaded firearm is useless for self-defense, would 9.41.270 (2)(c) negate the violation in section 1?

vermonter · Feb 13, 2012

Stretch said:
Ringing the bell, the receptionist sees me, comes immediately to the door and takes my key. I wait for a moment, and she returns my weapon. Magazine was removed, round out of the chamber. I immediately asked, "Who unloaded my weapon?" She says, "I did not, but we do not allow loaded firearms to be checked in." I politely smiled, said that was a silly policy and left it at that.
Obviously, I'm not pleased that someone took the liberty of unloading my weapon to secure it.

You are so right! If I were that deputy I NEVER would have accepted a weapon that did not have the action open! What an uneducated, unsafe deputy who has no idea what one of the main safety rules is - Never accept a weapon unless the action is open!

What they should have is access to the lock boxes so you can take responsibility for putting the holstered weapon in yourself and removing it, and YOU take the key like a storage locker at the bus terminal etc, then you are not unsafely passing a loaded weapon to some idiot! I am glad you were so observant and tested the deputy to see if he was safe about it. I would report his actions to the Sheriff immediately! It was good of you to observe that the receptionist did the right thing by handing you a weapon with the action open, you should give KUDOS to the Sheriff about her! NRA Instructor - ALL disciplines....

vermonter · Feb 13, 2012

Vitaeus said:
No, but I am liable if the firearm discharges, I doubt qualified Immunity would attach to someone handling a checked firearm and even if it did, the organization would be liable for damages as well.

Yes you are liable. Better to take the round and magazine out in your car. If you feel that unsafe walking to the courthouse put the mag back in, chamber empty. That way all you have to do is drop the mag and pull the slide - No A.D. chance there! PPL are never satisfied. In most states only LE can enter with a firearm and there are no civilian lockboxes... Go with the flow, it's their courthouse. We look like asses every time we nitpick when the law is good to start with.....

Vitaeus · Feb 13, 2012

vermonter said:
Yes you are liable. Better to take the round and magazine out in your car. If you feel that unsafe walking to the courthouse put the mag back in, chamber empty. That way all you have to do is drop the mag and pull the slide - No A.D. chance there! PPL are never satisfied. In most states only LE can enter with a firearm and there are no civilian lockboxes... Go with the flow, it's their courthouse. We look like asses every time we nitpick when the law is good to start with.....

No actually it is OUR courthouse, we paid for it and they get a salary from us. Unfortunately this has been forgotten by the general public. I want them to follow the law and provide a bus station lock box so it is entirely my responsiblility and they can not be distracted by a lawful citizen from their paid duty to deal with the criminals.

PALO · Feb 13, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Because it demonstrates the search aspect of it. The OP checked the weapon in a holster to unload it I am assuming they also had to unholster it. If you put a zip tie around it they would in my opinion need to get a warrant to cut it.

Is there a law that allows them to mess with someone's private property?

I believe actions of our government need to be enumerated and limited as intended years ago by our founders.

Also our RCW's on firearms states that municipalities cannot be more restrictive except....and list the exceptions, demanding ID, stating "no loaded" firearms are permitted, or anything else demanded above what the RCW's state are more restrictive.

i think you need to study some case law. you are assuming that, for example, the cops running a serial # of a gun they have in their possession is a "searcH' subject to the 4th amendment restrictions. i would ask you where is the right to privacy AS to the serial # which is stamped in plain view ON the firearm?

you ask "is there a law allowing them to do x" when that is just as silly as an antigunner asking "is there a law allowing you to OC" (hint : there isn't)

assuming arguendo, they ran the serial, the question is, is there a recognized privacy interest, whether via case law, or legislation that RESTRICTS them from doing so? ask the wrong question, as you do, and the answer is irrelevant.
again, support your argument with actual case law, or clarify that you are speaking normatively, iow about what you think the law SHOULD be.

imo, this is analogous to the cops running a license plate # of a car they can see from a lawful vantage point or a VIN from the same lawful vantage point

or , to paraphrase shakespeare "much ado about nothing"

PALO · Feb 13, 2012

Difdi said:
Would drawing the firearm the moment it is returned to you, loading it then immediately reholstering it run afoul of RCW 9.41.270 (1)? And given that an unloaded firearm is useless for self-defense, would 9.41.270 (2)(c) negate the violation in section 1?

if they are going to unload your weapon, then as a matter of common sense safety, they either reload it for you prior to returning it OR have a "loading barrel" for you to do so.

Vitaeus · Feb 13, 2012

need to do some research, but "in plain view" does not usually allow an officer to manipulate an item to view the information, that they remove it from a holster and then are able to "plain view" is murky, I have no cites at the current time however.

PALO · Feb 13, 2012

Vitaeus said:
need to do some research, but "in plain view" does not usually allow an officer to manipulate an item to view the information, that they remove it from a holster and then are able to "plain view" is murky, I have no cites at the current time however.

the question is - does the fact that a gun is TURNED OVER TO THE POLICE within a holster (assuming arguendo the holster covers the serial #), and not pursuant to a criminal investigation, but merely as an administrative matter, mean that the owner of the gun has a "legitimate" (iow one society would recognize as reasonable) privacy interest over the parts of the gun that are concealed by the holster.

i would argue - no

now, if you can find some case law otherwise, i would of course change my mind, or even persuasive argument, because i am rational person, and rational people reconsider their beliefs when evidence/argumentation makes that a smart choice.

my argument is that people do not wear holsters to conceal identifying marks on a handgun, they wear/use them to protect the handgu from n from damage/weather and to protect it from going off inadvertently/unintentionally, and ot prevent people from easily grabbing it from them, and to offer a convenient comfortable way to carry the firearm. imo, people don't usually use a holster with the express purpose of concealing serial #'s from view. also, ime criminals who often have stolen guns, that same can be confirmed via the serial # ALMOST NEVER use a holster (ime, they usually carry w/o a holster and that is considerable experience) which further supports my belief.

furthermore, when handing over a firearm to police for storage, would it be reasonable assume the police might remove a gun from the holster/unload it, etc ?

again, i would say that's a reasonable assumption and most people would not be surprised that the cops did that

this is why i see the argument made to me that it was some kind of privacy violation for the cop to run the serial # (assuming they did so), as not compelling

Vitaeus · Feb 13, 2012

Found one citation from WA State supreme court.

http://www.mrsc.org/dtsearch/dtisap...Form=/wa/courts/index_dtsearch_form.html#hit1

The court states that an officer does not get a free pass on information found during other justified actions. The 4th amendment provides extensive protection and only "limited" exceptions should be allowed. The link is to an extensive decision which limits the "plain view" exception and has multiple examples of "seizures" that were outside the scope of the consensual or warrant'ed searches

1245A Defender · Feb 14, 2012

well,,,

A question for PALO.

the serial number on my FNP45 is on the bottom of the rail,
it is covered by the light/laser I have mounted there.

it would be a 4th amendment violation to remove that in order to run my number.

can you riddle your way past that?

would this be any different than removing it from the holster, in order to find the number, in plain sight?

If I move your stereo, for my safety?
Is the number now In plain sight?

PALO · Feb 14, 2012

1245A Defender said:
A question for PALO.

the serial number on my FNP45 is on the bottom of the rail,
it is covered by the light/laser I have mounted there.

it would be a 4th amendment violation to remove that in order to run my number.

can you riddle your way past that?

would this be any different than removing it from the holster, in order to find the number, in plain sight?

If I move your stereo, for my safety?
Is the number now In plain sight?

first of all, people have to remember that the state of WA recognizes a right to privacy . thus, police search and seizure questions must be viewed (unless it's a federal officer) in light of WA state's increased recognition of protection against state invasion of privacy interest

(iow our constitution is more respective of actual privacy. the 4th only recognizes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures and never mentions privacy)

again, i am offering my opinion. my opinion is that IF your serial # is covered by that mounted object, that an officer removing that, would constitute a de facto search and in the case of merely having a weapon for admin purposes (storage) that would render that action presumptively UNreasonable.

that's my opinion.

i would contrast that to a situation where the serial # was immediately visible upon merely removing the gun from the holster when taking it for admin purposes (storage) because i don't think a reasonable person would conclude such actions invaded a privacy interest.

again, subjectively (and subjective intent of people is relevant in regard to whether they took an action to protect a privacy interest) speaking, the reason people put guns in holsters is for the reasons mentioned , not to hide a serial #

there are ample case in WA state distinguishing our concepts of both plain and open view, from those under the federal (looser standard).

for example, we have much greater privacy protection vis a vis curtilage

also, under the federal standard, cops can search garbage you put out at the curb. in WA, the cop must first wait for it to be dumped into a garbage truck before searching it, etc

any time a cop manipulates an object such that what was not at first apparent IS now apparent, there is certainly a privacy interest question

removing a holster IS such a manipulation

however, since the holster would be removed to empty the gun ALSO, there is also the question of intent.

i doubt there is any case law on this subject (specific to the holster thing) and i certainly haven't looked this **** up in findlaw or lexis nexis.

but yes, that is my opinion.

removing the gun from the holster while administratively storing it, thus revealing the serial #?

kosher.

removing an accessory to access the serial #?

not kosher

and again, this is with consideration of an independent grounds reading of the WA constitution, not the lower federal standard

i have no idea what you are talking about, "moving a stereo for safety" unless this is some kind of trollish snark about officers who use officer safety (which is a legitimate interest) but in your mind, they are merely on fishing expeditions

trolling bores me.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 14, 2012

Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner
Because it demonstrates the search aspect of it. The OP checked the weapon in a holster to unload it I am assuming they also had to unholster it. If you put a zip tie around it they would in my opinion need to get a warrant to cut it.

Is there a law that allows them to mess with someone's private property?

I believe actions of our government need to be enumerated and limited as intended years ago by our founders.

Also our RCW's on firearms states that municipalities cannot be more restrictive except....and list the exceptions, demanding ID, stating "no loaded" firearms are permitted, or anything else demanded above what the RCW's state are more restrictive.

PALO said:
i think you need to study some case law. you are assuming that, for example, the cops running a serial # of a gun they have in their possession is a "searcH' subject to the 4th amendment restrictions. i would ask you where is the right to privacy AS to the serial # which is stamped in plain view ON the firearm?

you ask "is there a law allowing them to do x" when that is just as silly as an antigunner asking "is there a law allowing you to OC" (hint : there isn't)

assuming arguendo, they ran the serial, the question is, is there a recognized privacy interest, whether via case law, or legislation that RESTRICTS them from doing so? ask the wrong question, as you do, and the answer is irrelevant.
again, support your argument with actual case law, or clarify that you are speaking normatively, iow about what you think the law SHOULD be.

imo, this is analogous to the cops running a license plate # of a car they can see from a lawful vantage point or a VIN from the same lawful vantage point

or , to paraphrase shakespeare "much ado about nothing"

Reread my post, I am not talking about plain view etc.

I also was expressing my opinion on enumerated powers and the constitutionality of what happened. I am a strong believer of enumerated powers and that governments and their agencies don't have "rights".

State in the RCW's where they have the right to unload your weapon or unholster if turning it in inside a holster, this is why I feel they do this purposely to run numbers? This is not a traffic, stop or even a consensual encounter where the the OP can walk away, so I would feel (this is a liberty lovers opinion not based on case law) they have no right to run your numbers or do any type of search of your ID or person.

To me there is much "case" law that is plain unconstitutional and needs to be overturned.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 14, 2012

1245A Defender;1701720 If I move your stereo said:
I know where you are going with this one Bob, and it does have to do with case law.

Grant County District Court

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member