• 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.

RCW vs. WAC

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
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.
 

norahc

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
83
Location
Washington, Washington, USA
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.
 

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
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?
 

NarrowPathPilgrim

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
19
Location
Post Falls, Idaho, USA
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.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

RCW - 138 pounds

WAC - 59 pounds

So it is clear that RCW has more weight.:lol:

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.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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.
 

NarrowPathPilgrim

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
19
Location
Post Falls, Idaho, USA
imported post

apjonas wrote:
RCW = 138 pounds

WAC = 59 pounds

So it is clear that RCW has more weight. :lol:
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! :lol:

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
 
Top