Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: RCW vs. WAC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    So I've been curious as to how much weight the Washington Admininstrative Codes actually have? Can you be arrested and sentenced for violating one, or do you just get punished by the parent organization?

    I'm wondering, because I knew as a U of W student, that I could be kicked out for having a firearm on campus, but now that I'm an alumni, can I carry on campus without worring about being charged? I know that UW is covered under the WAC's, but are those really laws, or would I just be asked to leave UW if I am found out?

    Please note, I not talking just about UW, but more so about the WAC's in general.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Washington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    For you to be charged criminally, you must be charged with a violation of the RCW's.

    The WAC's sometimes have small monetary penalties associated with them, but it is not a criminal charge. You can not be arrested for violating them.

    Simply put, RCW's are laws and WAC's are rules.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    that's exactly what I thought, and hoped for. But if they're rules, aren't the monetary fines simply enforceable if you're on their property? And what about, for example, a college campus with their own police department. I'm sure you'd be in handcuffs, but you can't be charged for a crime, can you? So what do they do, ban you from the campus?


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Post Falls, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    norahc wrote:
    For you to be charged criminally, you must be charged with a violation of the RCW's.

    The WAC's sometimes have small monetary penalties associated with them, but it is not a criminal charge. You can not be arrested for violating them.

    Simply put, RCW's are laws and WAC's are rules.
    As far as most attorneys are concerned, you are correct. But I would go one step further and say that even the RCWs are constitutionally defective, for the following reasons:

    1. The Revised Code of Washington Makes No Claim To Be Law
    2. The Revised Code of Washington Specifically Disclaims Authority of Law
    "...Nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws." RCW 1.04.021
    3. The Washington State Supreme Court Has Said It Is Not The Law
    “In this respect, the 1951 legislature was following its own unconstitutional device for amending a section of an act in disregard of the specific constitutional mandate. The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled "Revised Code of Washington," which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged." PAROSA v. TACOMA, 57 Wn.2d 409, 415, (1960) (emphasis added)
    4. It Claims Authority Only By The Unratified 1889 Constitution
    5. This “Code of Washington” Is Unlawfully Revised By The Executive Branch
    6. The Revised Code of Washington is Copyrighted And Therefore Private
    7. The Revised Code of Washington Has No Enacting Clauses
    8. The Revised Code of Washington Lacks Proper Titles

    Please read this 46-page brief I wrote concerning the illegality of the Revised Code of Washington for a more detailed analysis.

    Sincerely,
    Zach Doty

    PS. This doesn't mean that you won't be arrested for violating them. It just means they are constitutionally void.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    RCW - 138 pounds

    WAC - 59 pounds

    So it is clear that RCW has more weight.

    Now what we probably have here is a codification that has not been acted into positive law. However, the slip laws or annual compilations upon which RCW is based still exist and are probably exactly the same - so this is a not a big issue. To answer the main question - statutes trump administrative legislation. However statutes are often vague or leave gaps and courts give great deference to administrative agencies unless the regs clearly offend the statute.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    The fact that a work is copyrighted is not really dispositive. Many states contract with private firms such as West to produce codes. There is generally a statement such as "No copyright is claimed in government works." The copyrighted portion is the value added - annotations or analysis. The government portion may still be the bulk of the material and the simple fact of copyright does not mean it is not valid.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    NarrowPathPilgrim wrote:
    Please read this 46-page brief I wrote concerning the illegality of the Revised Code of Washington for a more detailed analysis.
    You wrote that?!

    You want to be My Cousin Zachy? :P

    LoveMyCountry

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Post Falls, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    RCW = 138 pounds

    WAC = 59 pounds

    So it is clear that RCW has more weight.
    Wow, I think you broke the code! That must be the same system of measurement that the judges use. In their minds it goes like this:
    RCW - 138 Pounds
    WAC - 59 Pounds
    Constitution - 0 Pounds 6 Ounces
    That answers a lot of questions. I always wondered why they ignored it!

    apjonas wrote:
    The fact that a work is copyrighted is not really dispositive. Many states contract with private firms such as West to produce codes. There is generally a statement such as "No copyright is claimed in government works." The copyrighted portion is the value added - annotations or analysis. The government portion may still be the bulk of the material and the simple fact of copyright does not mean it is not valid.
    If there is such a statement disclaiming copyright of government work in the Revised Code of Washington, that would fix one of the eight problems, but I haven't seen any such statement. However, I'll take a closer look just to make sure.

    LoveMyCountry wrote:
    NarrowPathPilgrim wrote:
    Please read this 46-page brief I wrote concerning the illegality of the Revised Code of Washington for a more detailed analysis.
    You wrote that?!

    You want to be My Cousin Zachy? :P

    LoveMyCountry
    The arguments and concepts outlined in the brief are by no means original. I had other works I based by brief on, and I even quoted sections from them in places. But I wrote the rest. This is only one of many briefs I've done regarding Washington law.

    If you find yourself in a legal entanglement let me know. I'm mainly familiar with Washington law (even though I now live just 50 miles south of you in Post Falls Idaho) and the details are a bit different in Idaho; but most of the underlining concepts are the same. With a little research and modification, this 46 page brief could be used in any state. Idaho has some of the same problems with the constitutionality of their code. So yes, give me a call if you need help with some legal matters, expecially constitutional issues (or gun issues).

    Sincerely,
    Zach Doty

Posting Permissions

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