Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Does RCW9.41.300 require lockboxes for ANY public building that restricts possession?

  1. #1
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    110

    Does RCW9.41.300 require lockboxes for ANY public building that restricts possession?

    Here we go again...

    The Spokane Public Facilities District intends to vigorously enforce their 'no weapons' policy starting this fall.

    A comment was made that the 'PFD' will have to provide a lockbox, per RCW 9.41.300(b) for those wishing to possess a concealed pistol to / from their vehicle.

    I am not sure I read it that way.

    The relevant parts are:

    Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions—Penalty.

    (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:

    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).

    For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.

    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. RCW 9.41.300 (b)

    This section seems to deal only with areas related to court proceedings, not any public building in general.
    There is no RCW, that I can find, that requires any other public building to provide lockboxes, regardless that the building has a 'policy' that prevents possession, even by those duly licensed.
    Comments?

    hadji
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. -Citizen

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    I also read it as pertaining to court buildings.

    Don't see the same requirement for Jails, etc, although some may or may not provide a place to secure a weapon.


    Better yet, just have a means of securing your weapon in your vehicle. Something like a Gun Vault mini bolted to the floor of your vehicle's trunk or under a rear seat if it can be folded up like mine can. Beats having to spend endless amounts of time with the inevitable hassle.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    RCW 9.41.290
    State preemption.
    The state of Washington hereby 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, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
    [1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]
    How are they allowed to have that policy?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 07-29-2016 at 08:59 AM.
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    110
    "How are they allowed to have that policy?"

    That question is what finally entered my mind late last night.
    The policy itself is illegal.
    I think.

    Here is the line of thinking, straight from the PFD's attorney:
    (Quoting from correspondence during the Hayes vs PFD action)

    1. Use of District Facilities is commonly through a license agreement. The license agreement is a contract between the District and a private party to exclusively use and occupy facilities pursuant to agreed terms and conditions. In the matter presented to the Board, the Ron Paul License Agreement required conformance with the District policies which include the prohibition on concealed weapons.

    As was recognized in Chan, when the District enters into a business relationship for a proprietary or financial purpose the conditions contained in the License Agreement are not laws or regulations which would be subject to preemption by state law. In other words, just like a private party, when the District rents or authorizes use of its private facilities, the District and the event presenters are regulating use of facilities by agreement not through legislation (e.g., ordinance).

    Given the above case law, and the use of the District Facilities through a License Agreement, the State preemption statute does not apply. Re: Possession of Concealed Weapons in Public Facilities, Witherspoon Kelley, March 23, 2012

    However Chan goes on to refute this very line of reasoning:

    ¶ 15 The City contends RCW 9.41.290 does not preempt the Firearms Rule because (1) the City is acting in its proprietary capacity, (2) the Firearms Rule is not a criminal regulation, and (3) the Firearms Rule was not adopted as a law or ordinance.

    However, in reaching the conclusion that the city was acting in its proprietary capacity by imposing conditions on the sales of firearms, the court emphasizes that "[t]he critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public." PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 357, 144 P.3d 276.[12]

    29 The City also contends that RCW 9.41.290 does not apply because the statute only precludes a municipality from adopting "laws and ordinances" regulating the possession of firearms, and not a rule or policy. But the City cites no support for the proposition that it can regulate the possession of firearms through rule or policy when it cannot do so by law or ordinance.

    34 In sum, we hold that RCW 9.41.290 preempts the Firearms Rule. Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public.
    Chan v. City of Seattle, 265 P. 3d 169 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2011

    In practice, the PFD will trespass anyone in possession of a concealed pistol, citing the policy as the authority.
    This effectively violates RCW 9.41.290, stated above and here in relevant part:

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession... RCW 9.41.290, State Preemption.

    Or am I missing something?
    hadji
    Last edited by hadji; 07-29-2016 at 10:41 AM. Reason: incorrect cite
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. -Citizen

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    --snipped--
    ......am I missing something?
    Yep - you're missing that they will make you pay dearly in time and money for bucking the system.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Yep - you're missing that they will make you pay dearly in time and money for bucking the system.
    You afraid?

  7. #7
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Yep - you're missing that they will make you pay dearly in time and money for bucking the system.
    Acknowledged.
    And...?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. -Citizen

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    "How are they allowed to have that policy?"

    That question is what finally entered my mind late last night.
    The policy itself is illegal.
    I think.

    Here is the line of thinking, straight from the PFD's attorney:
    (Quoting from correspondence during the Hayes vs PFD action)

    1. Use of District Facilities is commonly through a license agreement. The license agreement is a contract between the District and a private party to exclusively use and occupy facilities pursuant to agreed terms and conditions. In the matter presented to the Board, the Ron Paul License Agreement required conformance with the District policies which include the prohibition on concealed weapons.

    As was recognized in Chan, when the District enters into a business relationship for a proprietary or financial purpose the conditions contained in the License Agreement are not laws or regulations which would be subject to preemption by state law. In other words, just like a private party, when the District rents or authorizes use of its private facilities, the District and the event presenters are regulating use of facilities by agreement not through legislation (e.g., ordinance).

    Given the above case law, and the use of the District Facilities through a License Agreement, the State preemption statute does not apply. Re: Possession of Concealed Weapons in Public Facilities, Witherspoon Kelley, March 23, 2012

    However Chan goes on to refute this very line of reasoning:

    ¶ 15 The City contends RCW 9.41.290 does not preempt the Firearms Rule because (1) the City is acting in its proprietary capacity, (2) the Firearms Rule is not a criminal regulation, and (3) the Firearms Rule was not adopted as a law or ordinance.

    However, in reaching the conclusion that the city was acting in its proprietary capacity by imposing conditions on the sales of firearms, the court emphasizes that "[t]he critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public." PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 357, 144 P.3d 276.[12]

    29 The City also contends that RCW 9.41.290 does not apply because the statute only precludes a municipality from adopting "laws and ordinances" regulating the possession of firearms, and not a rule or policy. But the City cites no support for the proposition that it can regulate the possession of firearms through rule or policy when it cannot do so by law or ordinance.

    34 In sum, we hold that RCW 9.41.290 preempts the Firearms Rule. Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public.
    Chan v. City of Seattle, 265 P. 3d 169 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2011

    In practice, the PFD will trespass anyone in possession of a concealed pistol, citing the policy as the authority.
    This effectively violates RCW 9.41.290, stated above and here in relevant part:

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession... RCW 9.41.290, State Preemption.

    Or am I missing something?
    hadji
    That is 100% correct, I believe that RCW 9.41.300 is pretty clear on where municipalities can regulate firearms. The PFD has done an end run around the law, the problem as we found out it will take $40K Plus to take them to court.

    "The City also contends that RCW 9.41.290 does not apply because the statute only precludes a municipality from adopting "laws and ordinances" regulating the possession of firearms, and not a rule or policy. But the City cites no support for the proposition that it can regulate the possession of firearms through rule or policy when it cannot do so by law or ordinance."

    If that were true then any given city could just adopt a no guns policy for parks and trespass anyone carrying a firearm.

    The key here I believe is the fact that the PFD never surrenders control over the building to another party. No different than renting the pavilion at Manitoe Park allows the park district to ban firearms in the park.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    A synonym for ordinance is rule, directive, mandate.

    1.
    NORTH AMERICAN
    a piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority.
    "a city ordinance banned smoking in nearly all types of restaurants"
    2.
    an authoritative order; a decree.
    synonyms: edict, decree, law, injunction, fiat, command, order, rule, ruling, dictum, dictate, directive, mandate
    "the president issued an ordinance"
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    the problem as we found out it will take $40K Plus to take them to court.


    Isn't that what the W.A.C. is for? Isn't that what the S.A.F. is for? Isn't that what the N.R.A. is for? Wouldn't they want to defense their investment in Chan?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    it will take $40K Plus to take them to court.
    <snip>.
    Wow that's some filing fees ya got there.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Isn't that what the W.A.C. is for? Isn't that what the S.A.F. is for? Isn't that what the N.R.A. is for? Wouldn't they want to defense their investment in Chan?[/COLOR]
    Evidently not, SAF asked us to stand down and not pursue this a couple of years ago.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    That was not a double post Grapeshot.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Wow that's some filing fees ya got there.
    That was to get to the Washington Supreme court assuming they would appeal if they lost the first two rounds
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    That was not a double post Grapeshot.
    Most assuredly was. Word for word, all totally identical. As soft deletes are still readable by the administrators/moderators, I have sent you a PM was copy and paste of each.

    In the future, I recommend handling this type of thing by PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Problem is since Chan the court has changed for the worse. They are insane/corrupt. Just look at the McCleary and Charter School decisions where the court is literally siding with a plaintiff that openly bribed it in violation of the Massey V Caperton precedent.

    We need to fix the court before any major cases. There is a good group "stop buying our judges" that has been campaigning for a fresh slate of jurists. Make sure to vote out those incumbent judges!
    Last edited by Alpine; 07-31-2016 at 11:51 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    110

    Does RCW9.41.300 require... - Answer

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I also read it as pertaining to court buildings.
    To redirect the thread back to the original question...
    "Does RCW9.41.300 require lockboxes for ANY public building that restricts possession?"

    If there is no objection, the members of the forum seem to agree that the answer is "no".
    The RCW refers to only with areas related to court proceedings.

    hadji
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. -Citizen

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    To redirect the thread back to the original question...
    "Does RCW9.41.300 require lockboxes for ANY public building that restricts possession?"

    If there is no objection, the members of the forum seem to agree that the answer is "no".
    The RCW refers to only with areas related to court proceedings.

    hadji
    Agreed.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  19. #19
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    To redirect the thread back to the original question...
    "Does RCW9.41.300 require lockboxes for ANY public building that restricts possession?"

    If there is no objection, the members of the forum seem to agree that the answer is "no".
    The RCW refers to only with areas related to court proceedings.

    hadji
    That's how I read it.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

Posting Permissions

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