Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Firearms at Bate's technical College

  1. #1
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239

    Firearms at Bate's technical College

    I've been attending Bate's for a few months now. Before I started there I researched their policy on firearms. Everything I found says I can carry there "in accordance with state regulations and law."

    Today, I was talking with a few other students, none of which know I carry there nor do I know if they carry, and the subject came up and we talked quite a bit about firearms and weather they are allowed on campus. We were having this conversation fairly close to the campus security office and one of the guys went to ask the security office if they are allowed or not. The security offices said all Bate's property is a gun free zone and anyone carrying will be violating state and federal law.

    What he said goes against all of the school policies that I have found so far, so I called the main security office at the downtown campus to find out if he was talking out his ass or if that is how the security is being trained. That is in fact how they are trained and after a few minutes of trying to get him to look up the school policy, he told me it's at the discretion of the school president so I need to call his office.

    I called the school president's office and talked to his administrative assistant. All she told me is that firearms came up in the last board meeting and they are currently revising the policy.

    My question is: What now?
    I know some of you guys might say don't ask for permission to carry, just do it. Well that might be the case if I was in costco or walmart, but my biggest worry is that I might end up in the same boat as Grim_Night, over at clover park. I do carry concealed at the school so I'm worried what the reaction might be if someone found out. Based on what the security guys told me, the reaction probably won't be very good for me.

    Here are the policies I've found from Bate's:

    Bate's Technical College Student Handbook Page 18: (This matches the WAC word for word) http://www.bates.ctc.edu/disclosures
    (15) Unlawful possession, transportation or storage of any firearm(s), explosives, dangerous chemicals or other weapons, devices or substances which can be used to inflict bodily harm or to damage real or personal property.

    Bate's Technical College Bylaws and Policies; Chapter 6: College Operations [607] Pages 79-80: VII. FIREARMS
    http://www.bates.ctc.edu/disclosures
    Carrying, exhibiting, displaying or drawing any firearm, dagger, sword, knife, or any other cutting device, or explosive, or any facsimile weapons, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm and/or property damage in a manner, and at a time and place that either manifest an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons, is prohibited on college property; provided, however, that this regulation shall not apply to law enforcement personnel required by their office to carry such weapons or devices. The President will establish procedure for enforcement of this policy in accordance with state regulations and law.

    WAC 495A-121-041: Prohibited Conduct: (This matches the student handbook word for word) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.a...e=495A-121-041
    (15) Unlawful possession, transportation or storage of any firearm(s), explosives, dangerous chemicals or other weapons, devices or substances which can be used to inflict bodily harm or to damage real or personal property.
    Last edited by J1MB0B; 01-09-2014 at 04:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    I did find a WAC that states:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.a...e=495A-140-040

    (8) No person or group may use or enter onto college facilities having in their possession firearms, even if licensed to do so, except commissioned police officers as prescribed by law.

    If you read the whole chapter, it refers to outside organizations and groups using school facilities. Would it apply to regular students engaging in regular school activities?

    Edit to add: Doesn't this WAC go against RCW 9.41.290 in regards to state preemption? Just like Seattle's ban on firearms in parks. That one got revoked because it was in violation of state preemption.
    Last edited by J1MB0B; 01-09-2014 at 05:45 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Doesn't this WAC go against RCW 9.41.290 in regards to state preemption?
    That's the million (or several depending on the eventual litigation) dollar question.

    It's unclear how the WAC interacts with the RCW. AFAIK there hasn't been a court case to resolve it one way or the other yet, though I'm not an attorney. You may want to consult one.

  4. #4
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    I just got off the phone with "a guy" (not sure if it's cool to be throwing peoples names around or not?) at the second amendment foundation. He said because they are a state agency they can make up whatever rules they want regarding firearms because state preemption only applies to agencies below the state level. Sounds pretty goofy to me. If that is the case, how does state preemption allow us to carry in the capitol building? How does state preemption protect our right to carry in the unemployment office of DSHS?

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    I just got off the phone with "a guy" (not sure if it's cool to be throwing peoples names around or not?) at the second amendment foundation. He said because they are a state agency they can make up whatever rules they want regarding firearms because state preemption only applies to agencies below the state level. Sounds pretty goofy to me. If that is the case, how does state preemption allow us to carry in the capitol building? How does state preemption protect our right to carry in the unemployment office of DSHS?
    I don't really agree with their assessment of "state preemption only applies to agencies below the state level" and the reason being is that our Constitution which our laws are to be based upon are restrictions placed upon our Government not our citizens.

    Maybe there is a legal begal still hanging around here but WAC's are Washington Administrative Code and is meant for the operation of the State Run Offices they are not Revised Code of Washington.

    He is just another nimrod putting their own two cents on a topic that has no clue.
    Last edited by BigDave; 01-09-2014 at 06:33 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I don't really agree with their assessment of "state preemption only applies to agencies below the state level" and the reason being is that our Constitution which our laws are to be based upon are restrictions placed upon our Government not our citizens.

    He is just another nimrod putting their own two cents on a topic that has no clue.

    I don't agree either. The way I see it is the school has conflicting policies that also conflict with state law. I just want to make sure I don't end up booted from the school or end up being the guy that has to foot the bill in court to find out how the WAC interacts with the RCW.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    [QUOTE=J1MB0B;2023654]

    Bate's Technical College Bylaws and Policies; Chapter 6: College Operations [607] Pages 79-80: VII. FIREARMS
    http://www.bates.ctc.edu/disclosures
    Carrying, exhibiting, displaying or drawing any firearm, dagger, sword, knife, or any other cutting device, or explosive, or any facsimile weapons, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm and/or property damage in a manner, and at a time and place that either manifest an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons, is prohibited on college property; provided, however, that this regulation shall not apply to law enforcement personnel required by their office to carry such weapons or devices.

    So according to Bate's it is OK for A law enforcement officer to intimidate others and carry weapons in a manner that warrants alarm for the safety of others. What if their office does not require them to carry a knife or night stick is it still OK.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    I don't agree either. The way I see it is the school has conflicting policies that also conflict with state law. I just want to make sure I don't end up booted from the school or end up being the guy that has to foot the bill in court to find out how the WAC interacts with the RCW.
    Being Right All Day Long does not mean you will be harmed.

    Conceal it and don't tell anyone and continue your education or take a stand, spend thousands of dollars fighting it while you place your education on hold.

    This would be a good thing for SAF to address.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  9. #9
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    I just sent everything I have to the guy at the SAF. We'll see how it turns out.

    Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    He said because they are a state agency they can make up whatever rules they want regarding firearms because state preemption only applies to agencies below the state level.


    Preemption is the proper argument here, but not the preemption that flows from the RCW. It is true that the RCW only applies to municipalities. State agencies are not included in the RCW. Bates Technical College (and all other public higher education facilities) are state Executive Branch Agencies.

    The proper preemption argument here is the preemption that flows from the state constitution.

  11. #11
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    The response I got from SAF:

    Jim,
    From what I know the ‘WAC’ is administrative code, not exactly the same as the RCW. As long as you are a student enrolled at a state school that uses it, the WAC applies to you. I’ve never heard of anyone being charged under RCW concerning this matter, but disobeying the current ‘WAC’ rules can get you into other kinds of trouble, including being suspended, expelled/kicked out and possibly fined.

    If you feel like doing something about it, I would suggest contacting Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and starting your own chapter at your school. http://concealedcampus.org/

    Best Regards,
    Phil Watson

    Director of Special Projects
    Second Amendment Foundation
    12500 NE 10th Place
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    (425) 454-7012
    http://www.saf.org/


    I don't like it...I'm pretty sure that his point about being a student makes it ok for them to do was touched on in the other thread. I'm gonna sit down a re-read it tonight.

    The assistant to the school president did call me back and told me that per the director of human resources to the school, his interpretation of the official policy is concealed carry only. His refers to the school policy and bylaw handbook(linked in first post) where it says:
    "Carrying, exhibiting, displaying or drawing any firearm, dagger, sword, knife, or any other cutting device, or explosive, or any facsimile weapons, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm and/or property damage in a manner, and at a time and place that either manifest an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons, is prohibited on college property; provided, however, that this regulation shall not apply to law enforcement personnel required by their office to carry such weapons or devices. The President will establish procedure for enforcement of this policy in accordance with state regulations and law."

    He says if people see it, that I will be in violation of the above. Total BS. I remember seeing case law or an opinion letter from the state attorney general or something that says simply open carrying isn't cause to warrant alarm. Just can't remember where.

    I also found out that at the last board meeting and at the next one, the board is working on revising some school policies and firearms on campus is one of the topics. Might be a good opportunity to put together some info to help convince them to not ban all carry on campus.
    I really don't want to open a can of worms or bring unwanted attention to myself, but I hate the idea of not being able to carry or getting tased by some security guard because he doesn't know school policy or getting kicked out of the school.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Welcome to my world! I just started attending SPSCC as of monday. I open carried on campus because I was told flat out that the school's policy regarding firearms is this (paraphrased) As long as you are following state law, you are in compliance with the school's policy. The problem with this is that as some may already know, SPSCC has already tried to change their policy regarding firearms on campus. I was actually told by one of the campus security officers on monday that (again, paraphrased) to protect the other students and my right to carry on campus, I shouldn't exercise that right. So basically, if I want to keep my right, I shouldn't use it...

    PS. I'm all for setting up something for those of us that attend public colleges to protect our rights to lawfully carry in defense of ourselves and others while not being required to abide by rules that are more strict then state law. I'm getting sick of being told by these knuckleheads at public schools that my rights mean absolutely nothing.

    PPS. thanks for starting this thread. I didn't want to have to start a whole new one regarding SPSCC lol...
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 01-10-2014 at 03:03 AM.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    DO you have an attorney and the funds to fight it? If not you could very well do more damage then good.

    Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    What gets me about the WAC being extended to students is that that would make them employees of the college for purposes of having to follow the rules in the WAC, but customers of the college for every other legal purpose (health care, hours 'worked', etc).

    If they're an employee, even an unpaid intern, there are rules the college MUST follow with regards to them -- but no college does this. But as soon as a student/customer tries to exercise the rights of a customer, suddenly they are an employee under the authority of the WAC.

    How is it that a college can have it both (mutually exclusive) ways?

  15. #15
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Bates policy says the same thing as SPCC, Grimm.
    What gets my goat is the campus safety office and the administration are not on the same page as far as policies go, and neither one of them are going by the published policy. Hell, even the WAC contradicts itself.

    Im not putting to much weight on the reply from Phil. He didnt even know what WAC was. If the WAC extended to students the way he says it does, wouldnt it also apply in the same way to a client signed up to use worksource or a client signed up at dshs to get food benefits?

    For right now, Im just gonna keep it concealed and try to stay informed about the upcoming policy changes, Im gonna start goin to the board meetings, and continue researching for a case against them for when this does become an issue.
    I gave them a callback number that the school doesnt have on file for me and they only have my first name, so Im most likely not on thier radar yet.

    Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's not premption it's state law, and state law says there are only a limited number of places that are banned.
    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)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    DO you have an attorney and the funds to fight it? If not you could very well do more damage then good.

    Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
    Give me about 6 quarters and I'll gladly take on a case like this personally pro se for the betterment of the community :P
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    Give me about 6 quarters and I'll gladly take on a case like this personally pro se for the betterment of the community :P
    Well you would get your money's worth.

    Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Well you would get your money's worth.
    I'd be taking it on with actual legal education behind me instead of as just some average citizen... but thanks for the vote of confidence. Considering the fact that I won out against 2 state assistant attorney generals, I think I'm not doing half bad with no formal legal education and no paid legal council.

    I think with all the experience of the people here on these forums, we could stand a winning chance against getting these WAC rules removed.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    I'd be taking it on with actual legal education behind me instead of as just some average citizen... but thanks for the vote of confidence. Considering the fact that I won out against 2 state assistant attorney generals, I think I'm not doing half bad with no formal legal education and no paid legal council.


    Which is it, "with actual legal education" or "no formal legal education"?

    It's "attorneys general", like "brothers-in-law".

  21. #21
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Which is it, "with actual legal education" or "no formal legal education"?
    As of right now, I have no formal legal education. But in 18 months or so, I will be a certified paralegal with an AAS degree (2 year degree) and hopefully be getting a BAS degree (4 year degree) with a focus in civil rights and constitutional law. So in about 6 quarters, I will have a formal legal education which I don't have right now.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    RCW 9.41.290The preemption statute does not reserve firearms regulation to the legislature only. The preemption statute says the "State of Washington" has the power of regulation. I would think that a firearms regulation made by a state agency could, therefore, only be challenged on the basis of the Washington Constitution and not preemption.
    Probably. Another angle to approach it from is the fact that WACs generally apply to employees/personnel of a facility, not the customers it might be providing products or services too. If they want to claim you as an employee (or perhaps unpaid intern) they can...but then they have other obligations that they must fulfill.

  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    RCW 9.41.290
    State preemption.
    ~~snip~~
    The preemption statute does not reserve firearms regulation to the legislature only. The preemption statute says the "State of Washington" has the power of regulation. I would think that a firearms regulation made by a state agency could, therefore, only be challenged on the basis of the Washington Constitution and not preemption.
    Yet State agencies have no powers to make State Laws just rules that do with operation of their respective agencies and not citizens.

    Riddle me this does a State agency have the power to write a RCW?


    Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  24. #24
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Yet State agencies have no powers to make State Laws just rules that do with operation of their respective agencies and not citizens.

    Riddle me this does a State agency have the power to write a RCW?
    Quasi-legislative Capacity

    In this particular context, of interest is the quasi-legislative capacity ubiquitously granted to state agencies to establish the rules of their demesnes. I don't like it either, and I don't think it's Constitutional (at least, not at the Federal level), but it is the reality that is made right by the might of people with more and bigger guns than we have.

  25. #25
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    While a state agency cannot make it a crime to possess a firearm, the state agencies do have the power to withhold services/licenses to those who do not comply with their rules. A day care center cannot obtain a license unless they agree to prohibit firearms on the premises.
    Only until challenged.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

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
  •