Looked down the barrel of a 1911 this morning

[1911er]

I found out last night that somebody had stolen my credit card information and was using it to spend a whole bunch of money down in Mexico. When I discovered this, with help from my bank, they told me I needed to file a fraud report with the sheriff's so they could reimburse me the money that was fraudulently spent. So, I went in this morning to the Peninsula Detachment of the Pierce County Sheriff's to file a fraud report.

I paid particular attention to my appearance so as to appear more credible (although it shouldn't matter, but we all know it does), button down shirt and gray slacks. As per my norm I was OCing my 1911.

When I reached the counter I told the receptionist what I needed to do and barely a second later a deputy opens the door next to the counter window(rather hastily) and says that I need to go put my gun back in my vehicle. I calmly state that I just need to file a fraud report and I would be on my way. I could see two more officers standing just through the door. One of those two officers says that they will not take my report until I go put my gun back in my truck. I ask if they're refusing to take my report.

At that time, one of them behind the counter draws his pistol and walks through the door with it pointed at me (very nice 1911 I might add), and the other one walks through the door with pistol drawn, but down at his side (glock maybe, couldn't tell). My heart starts racing a little at this point, but I still feel calm and can speak logically as I try to explain yet again that I'm just there to file a report of an actual crime.

The one with the gun pointed at me (yes, I have all there names but am witholding them for the time being), orders me to put my hands on the counter and the other one with pistol drawn relieves me of my pistol, wallet and stops for a while at the recorder in my pocket (yes it was recording ) but I don't think he could figure out what it was so he moved on.

After all that the officer said he would hold onto my gun while he was running the numbers. I tried to tell him that even during a legitimate detainment (this was obviously not a legitimate one) they could only seize the weapon for officer safety and not investigatory purposes. He smiled and walked off. At this point one of them sees the extra mags on my offside (don't know how they missed them the first time) and takes those as well.

Finally they deign to take my report. The first one that I spoke with comes back out and takes my report right there in the middle of the entrance, seems a little unprofessional in my opinion but I've never had to file a police report before and so, didn't know the procedure. I give them all the information I know about the fraud, they give me a case number to give to my bank and then walk me outside where they return my pistol and mags. One of them handed me back my wallet while inside.

So, now I have two problems/questions. I have to gather some additional information from my bank and turn it into the sheriff's, which means I have to go back to the department. Should I carry/not carry, OC/CC? I think I already know what I'm going to do but always love to hear others opinions as well. Also, I would usually not think twice about filing a complaint with the department and the officers, but seeing as how they're investigating the fraud for me, I'm wondering if filing a complaint would negatively effect my case and the ability to get my money reimbursed (which I need for rent). Thoughts or opinions?

If I was in your shoes I would be cleaning out my shorts

 

[amlevin]

So, now I have two problems/questions. I have to gather some additional information from my bank and turn it into the sheriff's, which means I have to go back to the department. Should I carry/not carry, OC/CC? I think I already know what I'm going to do but always love to hear others opinions as well.

I'm sorry if you already answered this. I read back and didn't see where you had so here goes.

Did you ever take the info you needed from the bank to the SO's Office? If you haven't, and you plan on doing so, why not see if Andrew would like to accompany you when you do? Most officers don't have a lot to say when one's attorney is a witness.

 

[jarhead1911A]

Sounds like a couple of officers with power trip issues. You need to follow this up.

While giving the report of fraud i would have called the state patrol while standing there and reported a stolen handgun as welll..........

 

[kenshin]

While giving the report of fraud i would have called the state patrol while standing there and reported a stolen handgun as welll..........

lol, I like the idea but somehow I don't think that would have ended well for me.

 

[kenshin]

I'm sorry if you already answered this. I read back and didn't see where you had so here goes.

Did you ever take the info you needed from the bank to the SO's Office? If you haven't, and you plan on doing so, why not see if Andrew would like to accompany you when you do? Most officers don't have a lot to say when one's attorney is a witness.

Yes, I did, and I OC'd. No issues at all the second time around.

 

[Ajetpilot]

Yes, I did, and I OC'd. No issues at all the second time around.

Outstanding:exclaim:

 

[kenshin]

Outstanding:exclaim:

I went in the following day as well OC, and requested a complaint form, which they refused to give me of course.

 

[Edgar]

wish you lots of luck

i have had simaler problems with thuston county sherif and the washington state department of corections when i wanted to visit an inmate and was carring Concealed and contacted them per RCW 9.41.300 Subsection (1)(a) & Subsection (7) and RCW 9.94.043. when i contacted the thurston county jail requesting who i should ask for so that i could check my firearm was told that thay did not feal that thay had to abide by that section. i got the same line from the Corrections center. i contacted the washington state AGO and was told that becous in neather RCW did it say that the agency in question had no option but to allow me to check my weapon that thay could deside weather to comply with the RCW or not. i hope you have better luck finding a atturney to help you than i did.

 

[joeroket]

i have had simaler problems with thuston county sherif and the washington state department of corections when i wanted to visit an inmate and was carring Concealed and contacted them per RCW 9.41.300 Subsection (1)(a) & Subsection (7) and RCW 9.94.043. when i contacted the thurston county jail requesting who i should ask for so that i could check my firearm was told that thay did not feal that thay had to abide by that section. i got the same line from the Corrections center. i contacted the washington state AGO and was told that becous in neather RCW did it say that the agency in question had no option but to allow me to check my weapon that thay could deside weather to comply with the RCW or not. i hope you have better luck finding a atturney to help you than i did.

The provision in 9.41.300 to provide storage only applies to a court not a jail. It is part of section 1(b).

As far as the WDOC I have gotten confirmation from the AG's office by the Assistant AG that oversees DOC that they will start complying with firearm checking about this time last year. They also no longer require a SSN on the application for visiting an inmate.

 

[massivedesign]

At the TSCO facility there are lock boxes at the public visitors entrance to the jail. Those are specifically for firearms. The lady behind the counter will hand you a key and a "card" that has the lockbox you need to use. You secure it yourself and then hand her the key back. Then you go through the screening process.

 

[Claytron]

HankT wrote:
Yes, of course. Stop exercising your rights simply because it made someone uncomfortable. Certainly.... Anytime LEO hassles us for our perfectly legal behavior, protected by the Constitution of Washington state and protected by state statute we should stop that behavior. :X

Never mind that the officers were likely guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and coercion.

Sometimes its not about whos right or wrong, but whos going to get shot by 3 cops for showing up with a gun. Is it right for that to happen? No. Should it be happening? No. Is it something we should fight to change? YES.

But after having atleast two guns drawn on you for OCing at a pd, its just plain ignorant to it again just because you were in the clear the first time. being legally correct in your actions isnt going to stop you from getting killed, there is no "legal invincibility shield" that protects law abiding citizens from a bullet.

He already had a gun pointed at his head, to go back in an do the same thing without having gotten anywhere with a superior etc, would be really dangerous and really stupid in my opinion.

 

[reillo584]

When I reached the counter I told the receptionist what I needed to do and barely a second later a deputy opens the door next to the counter window(rather hastily) and says that I need to go put my gun back in my vehicle. I calmly state that I just need to file a fraud report and I would be on my way. I could see two more officers standing just through the door. One of those two officers says that they will not take my report until I go put my gun back in my truck. I ask if they're refusing to take my report.

At that time, one of them behind the counter draws his pistol and walks through the door with it pointed at me (very nice 1911 I might add), and the other one walks through the door with pistol drawn, but down at his side (glock maybe, couldn't tell). My heart starts racing a little at this point, but I still feel calm and can speak logically as I try to explain yet again that I'm just there to file a report of an actual crime.

I’m new to the board and probably this is not the first time that a law abiding citizen is confront with such situations (guns pointed at their face) definitely an overreaction from the police officers. It makes me think, how long these police officers will endure in a combat environment like Iraq or Afghanistan, as a soldier you have to abide by the rules of engagement, meaning the mere presence of AK-47’s in locals hands is not sufficient ground for soldiers to act or react to a possible threat. We are instructed to remain calm and proceed with a sense of alertness, scanning for any sign of possible threat …(been there, done that…) and of course foremost and more important do not engage 'till shoot upon…I will pay first row tickets seats to watch this guys running like a whole bunch of hysterical old ladies (Ok, that's maybe a little bit too far...I'm sorry) at the first sight of an AK, and basically you can't do anything…*spoiler alert*…(ptsss, AKs are everywhere in Iraq…):lol::lol::lol:

 

[Edgar]

information

The provision in 9.41.300 to provide storage only applies to a court not a jail. It is part of section 1(b).

As far as the WDOC I have gotten confirmation from the AG's office by the Assistant AG that oversees DOC that they will start complying with firearm checking about this time last year. They also no longer require a SSN on the application for visiting an inmate.

joeroket your are corect that subsection (1)(b) only applies to a court and not a jail. but if you go to section (7) of 9.41.300 you will see.

[(7) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.]

 

[gogodawgs]

The provision in 9.41.300 to provide storage only applies to a court not a jail. It is part of section 1(b).

As far as the WDOC I have gotten confirmation from the AG's office by the Assistant AG that oversees DOC that they will start complying with firearm checking about this time last year. They also no longer require a SSN on the application for visiting an inmate.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;

 

[joeroket]

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;

I am unsure about your post. You highlighted the word jail in section 1(a). I was referring to section 1(b) not applying to a jail. Are you in agreement or is there something you think I am missing?

Edit to add clarification: In my post you quoted I inadvertently wrote that the DOC will comply with firearm checking. I should have said they will comply with state law. They used to disallow firearms on prison grounds totally.

 

[joeroket]

joeroket your are corect that subsection (1)(b) only applies to a court and not a jail. but if you go to section (7) of 9.41.300 you will see.

[(7) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.]

I agree but the statute does not require them to give written permission or check the firearm and it only applies if you are going into the restricted areas of the jail or PD. They are not required to provide for firearm storage at jails or police departments. It simply states that if you do one of the two then you are exempt from section 1(a).

 

[amlevin]

I agree but the statute does not require them to give written permission or check the firearm and it only applies if you are going into the restricted areas of the jail or PD. They are not required to provide for firearm storage at jails or police departments. It simply states that if you do one of the two then you are exempt from section 1(a).

Another good argument for a small gun safe in ones vehicle.

 

[Edgar]

I agree but the statute does not require them to give written permission or check the firearm and it only applies if you are going into the restricted areas of the jail or PD. They are not required to provide for firearm storage at jails or police departments. It simply states that if you do one of the two then you are exempt from section 1(a).

i'm sorry to say but that is just a copout( i got the same exact same statement word for word from the WA AGO) if it was ment to be at the discresion of the instution it would never have been added that "9.41.300 subsection (1)(a) did not apply to" and then lay down the steps to be taken for the Citizen to lawfully interact with the instution in question. i have spoken to a few atturneys and when i get back to work and have the funds i will challeng this blatant refusal to fallow the RCW's.

sorry if this sound pissy but this is a real pet peve of mine

 

[Edgar]

PS:

the restriction in 9.41.300 subsection (1)(a) only applyes to the restricted areas of a police station not the public areas ie: the frunt offices and counter where you would fille a report.

 

[joeroket]

i'm sorry to say but that is just a copout( i got the same exact same statement word for word from the WA AGO) if it was ment to be at the discresion of the instution it would never have been added that "9.41.300 subsection (1)(a) did not apply to" and then lay down the steps to be taken for the Citizen to lawfully interact with the instution in question. i have spoken to a few atturneys and when i get back to work and have the funds i will challeng this blatant refusal to fallow the RCW's.

sorry if this sound pissy but this is a real pet peve of mine

It is not up to the institutions, that is why the change. Each warden has discretion to make rules for his individual institution. Some had a rule about firearms on the premises and some did not. This is what was going to change. it was not a DOC rule but rather an individual rule made by the warden. I would be willing to bet that you will not find any refusal to allow firearms, they are just not required by law to check them or to provide a lockbox.