• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
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
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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:

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
"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:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
"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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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"
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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?
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
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:

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
Does RCW9.41.300 require... - Answer

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
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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.
 
Top