Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Opinions about carring on state universitiy and college campuses

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1

    Opinions about carring on state universitiy and college campuses

    Hello everyone,

    Ok so getting my feet wet here at OC.org by jumping in with both feet LOL.

    I have a question about carrying on college campuses. I know no one here claims to be an attorney and this site does not give legal advice, I am just looking for personal opinions from folks who have a vested interest in both open carry and CPL carry.

    RCW 9.41.290, the "state preemption" law specifically states that the State "...fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms...". I understand that RCW to mean that the Legislature alone decides where a CPL holder or open carry advocate may carry their firearm.

    RCW 9.41.300 lists the places that any carry (with or without a CPL) is prohibited, and that law only covers K-12 schools, not state owned colleges or universities specifically.

    So, by that examination of the law, isn't the prohibition of firearms possession on the state universities and the state community/technical colleges a de facto violation of both our Constitutional rights and the existing state law governing firearms possession? Shouldn't the state preemption law nullify any campus rule or policy that states you cannot carry on campus?

    The way I see it, if you can be trusted to legally own a firearm (no criminal/mental health issues) and if you also passed a background check for a CPL, you should be trusted to responsibly carry your firearm to campus, especially in light of the recent rise in campus violence and the budget shortfalls that many cities and counties are still struggling with that have negatively impacted their law enforcement capabilities.

    We have nearly 400 thousand folks in this state with CPLs that legally and responsibly carry their firearms every day, and God alone knows how many open carry citizens and the overwhelming majority of those folks do so without any incidents or problems. It is disgraceful to me that the colleges and universities somehow find those same responsible, law abiding people to be instantly untrustworthy just because they walk onto their campus with a firearm, and they do so without the legal authority to prohibit those same firearms.

    What do the people here think of that?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    Bluedog,
    Welcome to OCDO and the WA sub forum.

    Although I know you are requesting "opinions", you might start by searching for threads that discuss the legal aspects of doing so. There are good discussions already posted on this subject.

    One good thread to start with that is not too old, and thus relevant, is: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...the-WWU-Campus


    I just noticed that it was started by "The Big Dog", a relative by chance?

    Once again, welcome
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Shouldn't the state preemption law nullify any campus rule or policy that states you cannot carry on campus?


    No, because public colleges and universities are state agencies. They are not "
    Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities . . ." as listed in .290.

    I'm not saying these administrative rules aren't illegal - just that preemption is the wrong argument. The State can't preempt itself, that's a legal absurdity.

    The proper argument is a constitutional one.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    There is a theory that the WACs that allow campuses to ban firearms are pre-empted by the RCWs, and thus that campuses could only use economic and educational sanctions against employees and students but fail to touch a law abiding citizen walking on campus, however, as far as I know I know of no caselaw that backs that up, and I'm not a lawyer. Guess everyone is waiting to see who is willing to be a test case.

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    There is a theory that the WACs that allow campuses to ban firearms are pre-empted by the RCWs, and thus that campuses could only use economic and educational sanctions against employees and students but fail to touch a law abiding citizen walking on campus, however, as far as I know I know of no caselaw that backs that up, and I'm not a lawyer. Guess everyone is waiting to see who is willing to be a test case.
    All of the WACs are plainly written to apply to students and faculty. when I was at Olympic College they had a student code of conduct (WAC-132C-120-065) and one of the provisions was a student could not possess or carry a firearm "except for law enforcement officers" one of my classmates was a civilian DOD police officer for the Bremerton Naval Base and he carried a gun (concealed) using that section....

    also when I was a student someone found out the employment code didn't apply to adjunct faculty, and there was an article in the skrool paper about how these evil adjunct professors could carry guns and pose a safety risk to students.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's not about preemption its about following the law, the law states where they are banned and not, agencies don't have the authority to go above that 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)

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    It's not about preemption its about following the law, the law states where they are banned and not, agencies don't have the authority to go above that law.
    I suppose it depends how far the government has to contract, there is no criminal penalty to carrying a firearm on a university campus. they can't fine you or jail you (well they can but it would be illegal as hell and grounds for a ripe civil suit) it's merely a tenant of a contract you sign, you pay and follow their rules and they provide you a service in return. if you break their rules they no longer have to provide you the service. termination of contract just like anywhere else.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    Fishy?
    Blue Sheep Dog?

    BS Dog?

    One hit drive by?

    Or did you guys just scare him off.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    No, because public colleges and universities are state agencies. They are not "[/COLOR]Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities . . ." as listed in .290.

    I'm not saying these administrative rules aren't illegal - just that preemption is the wrong argument. The State can't preempt itself, that's a legal absurdity.

    The proper argument is a constitutional one.
    I must disagree..."The State government" that preempts all else is the state legislature, and only the state legislature. Look in the RCW's that fit any of the colleges and universities and show me where they are specifically authorized to regulate firearms on their campus? The only reason they have not been forced to change their WAC's is no-one has bothered to take them to court.

    To the OP. College and University WAC's that prohibit firearms only of interest to students and faculty, not the general public in areas that are open to the general public. UW's WAC says no-one but security can be armed, WSU says students cannot be armed (but WSU does not restrict faculity). South Sound CC says nothing about firearms, though I hear there is a push to get them to change that.
    Last edited by hermannr; 09-07-2013 at 11:16 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Look in the RCW's that fit any of the colleges and universities and show me where they are specifically authorized to regulate firearms on their campus?


    I didn't say they are authorized. They aren't. I said preemption is the wrong argument.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I didn't say they are authorized. They aren't. I said preemption is the wrong argument.[/COLOR]
    What would be, in your thoughts, the correct argument?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    What would be, in your thoughts, the correct argument?
    IMHO...is they established the law and clearly states where it is forbidden to carry. It is a state wide law that doesn't say state agencies can exempt themselves from abiding by the 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)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    What would be, in your thoughts, the correct argument?


    As I've said, twice, that the administrative rules are a violation of the state constitution.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    As I've said, twice, that the administrative rules are a violation of the state constitution.[/COLOR]
    And three of us have responded that they (also) violate state law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    And three of us have responded that they (also) violate state law.


    Ok . . . so . . . what's that got to do with the price of tea in Red China?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •