School District says all fenced school areas are "buildings"

NavyMike · Feb 9, 2016

NavyMike said:
I suspect that they are trying to use the broad definition of building found in RCW 9a.04.110 (5)

(5) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any dwelling, fenced area, vehicle, railway car, cargo container, or any other structure used for lodging of persons or for carrying on business therein, or for the use, sale, or deposit of goods; each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate building;

Also, see here for how case law and legislation evolved to include fenced areas as buildings for the crime of burglary. My guess is that they will try to extrapolate it to your circumstances.

http://courts.mrsc.org/mc/courts/zsupreme/149wn2d/149wn2d0342.htm

Grapeshot · Feb 9, 2016

One doesn't have to be arrested in order to file suit. Having standing is enough.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 9, 2016

If I defined my horse's tail as a leg, how many legs would my horse have?

decklin · Feb 9, 2016

OC for ME said:
RCW 9.41.290 and 300 do not seem to address whether or not a school (school district) has the authority to define the boundaries of its facilities. Get the school district to put it in writing then talk to a attorney.

If it's not specifically authorized in RCW 9.41.300 then RCW 9.41.290 automatically applies.

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2016

decklin said:
If it's not specifically authorized in RCW 9.41.300 then RCW 9.41.290 automatically applies.

Let me rephrase.

RCW 9.41.290 and 300 do not seem to address whether or not a school (school district) has the authority to define the boundaries of its own facilities. School is mentioned only once in 300 and that reference is for the location of a gun store and its proximity to a school.

What RCW authorizes a school to, or prohibits a school from, defining the boundaries of its own facilities.

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2016

OC for ME said:
Let me rephrase.

RCW 9.41.290 and 300 do not seem to address whether or not a school (school district) has the authority to define the boundaries of its own facilities. School is mentioned only once in 300 and that reference is for the location of a gun store and its proximity to a school.

What RCW authorizes a school to, or prohibits a school from, defining the boundaries of its own facilities.

Let me re-rephrase.

What correlation does defining a school facility boundary have to a anti-gun law in WA?

decklin · Feb 10, 2016

OC for ME said:
Let me rephrase.

RCW 9.41.290 and 300 do not seem to address whether or not a school (school district) has the authority to define the boundaries of its own facilities. School is mentioned only once in 300 and that reference is for the location of a gun store and its proximity to a school.

What RCW authorizes a school to, or prohibits a school from, defining the boundaries of its own facilities.

That really doesn't matter. We're talking firearms. They cannot do anything that involves firearms. Even if they could change their boundaries it would be null and void once firearms become involved.

decklin · Feb 10, 2016

Here's something about school grounds and fencing. There's not much of a guideline for the schools to follow.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28A.335.010

Again, it doesn't matter as the subject is firearms.

solus · Feb 10, 2016

still haven't resigned yourselves yet huh... the infamous "THEY" can and will do anything they wish with complete impunity! "THEY" will only back down when 'US' jump through the hoops, at our own expense mind you, to make them change.

then the infamous "THEY" will put a flat hand across their mouth, get an expression of utter surprise, and in collective voice state: "WE DID NOT KNOW WE COULD NOT DO THIS or THAT nefarious activity ~ really are you sure??

therefore, why on earth are you pulling up alleged objective material on a public forum which could possibly provide the school district, who might be a reader, justification to their activities?

ipse

decklin · Feb 10, 2016

solus said:
still haven't resigned yourselves yet huh... the infamous "THEY" can and will do anything they wish with complete impunity! "THEY" will only back down when 'US' jump through the hoops, at our own expense mind you, to make them change.

then the infamous "THEY" will put a flat hand across their mouth, get an expression of utter surprise, and in collective voice state: "WE DID NOT KNOW WE COULD NOT DO THIS or THAT nefarious activity ~ really are you sure??

therefore, why on earth are you pulling up alleged objective material on a public forum which could possibly provide the school district, who might be a reader, justification to their activities?

ipse

I did no such thing. If anything I showed they do not have authority.
And at what point did I advocate doing nothing?

solus · Feb 10, 2016

decklin said:
I did no such thing. If anything I showed they do not have authority.
And at what point did I advocate doing nothing?

methinks ye have a guilty conscience sire, as your name was not used in vain or other blasphemous fashion nor was my post directed at you whatsoever!

that said as nicely as i can muster, now, get over yourself bunkie and carry on...:shocker:

ipse

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2016

We are, according to the OP, discussing the school redefining the school's premises as is mentioned in RCW 9.41.280.(1) due to his carry, he thinks, while picking up or dropping off his kid.

The fence seems to address the requirements of RCW 28A.335.010 (2). After reading the applicable law(s) it seems to me that the installation of the fence is not a result of the OP's carry.

The OP should contact the school and ask where the exemption in RCW 9.41.070(3)(e) ends.

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2016

Fallschirmjäger said:
If I defined my horse's tail as a leg, how many legs would my horse have?

A maximum of five...given the limited data to form a logical conclusion.

solus · Feb 10, 2016

there is an option here that needs considering...the asst principal maybe overheard 'gossip' or wishful thinking or wondering aloud, and this was a mental discussion with someone and the individual(s) who bantered the concept about reached the conclusion it wasn't viable and if the OP tromps in to discuss might push the concept over into reality which school mgmt previously dismissed...

kinda like getting thrown out for OC'g w/no signage posted, holler'g as you left you can't do this cuz there is no sign, and lo and behold...signage magically appears on entrances.

just a thought to think about after i ruminant'n on the subject...

ipse

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2016

If the school/district is anything like a school/district in Missouri then running down to Joe's Fence and Deck on a Friday afternoon , with a credit card, to be installed before the dude with the "Glock" shows up on Monday morning, is not process to have this fence installed. Bureaucracies take time...and bureaucrats need many many layers of paperwork to self proclaim "Another job well done!" [inject much boisterous back slapping here].

solus · Feb 10, 2016

Grapeshot said:
One doesn't have to be arrested in order to file suit. Having standing is enough.

OH how pray tell would that go down....

judge: why you bringing this civil law suit

OP: cuz they led me to believe my gun wasn't allowed and put up a fence

judge: any financial/defamation/etc occur?

OP: no but me believing has hurt my feelings...

Grape, sell tickets for this one...P.T. would be proud!!

(quote: To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. unquote)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

ipse

btw, exemplary site.

Grapeshot · Feb 10, 2016

Grapeshot said:
One doesn't have to be arrested in order to file suit. Having standing is enough.

solus said:
OH how pray tell would that go down....

judge: why you bringing this civil law suit

OP: cuz they led me to believe my gun wasn't allowed and put up a fence

judge: any financial/defamation/etc occur?

OP: no but me believing has hurt my feelings...

Grape, sell tickets for this one...P.T. would be proud!!

(quote: To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. unquote)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

ipse

btw, exemplary site.

Didn't say it was the best/preferred action in this case.

Just pointing out that an arrest need not to have occurred.

OC for ME · Feb 10, 2016

Grapeshot said:
... Just pointing out that an arrest need not to have occurred.

Sure does help though...unfortunately.

Standing....hmm...a prior restraint on exercising a inalienable right is not standing enough. The very real threat of loss of our liberty, possible bodily harm or even death...standing...class action status?

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 10, 2016

Just as a mental exercise...

Are there any requirements a 'school building' must have? Fire alarms, lockable doors? an intercom system in each classroom? Operable windows? Materials to be used in floors and walls? ((Things not readily available through the state code, but certainly somewhere one would think.)) If it's a 'building' then bring suit to bring it up to Code as a building.

Edit: Others seem to have beaten me to the punch.

decklin · Feb 10, 2016

solus said:
methinks ye have a guilty conscience sire, as your name was not used in vain or other blasphemous fashion nor was my post directed at you whatsoever!

that said as nicely as i can muster, now, get over yourself bunkie and carry on...:shocker:

ipse

Oops. Yeah, I thought your post was by another member that did direct his comments at me. Sorry.

School District says all fenced school areas are "buildings"

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Active 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

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member