Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Any idea what this is all about?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    "[img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SPD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/img][img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SPD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.jpg[/img]Under existing state statutes and a recient decision by the WA state supreme court, the court was clear that managers of public and private buildings , as well as entrances and walkways immediatly ascociated with these buildings, may adopt rules and enforce policies restricting the "open carry" of firearms. "

    WTF managers of public buildings have the right to trespass someone for open carry?!?!? And what is this "recient supreme court decision they are talking about?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    My guess is that they are talking about the vashon fire district case.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    My guess is that they are talking about the vashon fire district case.
    :X

    Don't keep us in the dark!What did it say?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    Just got off the phone with Renee Clarose at the Seattle police department legal devision and she will be looking in to it to find out how public managers can restrict open carry in light of RCW 9.41.290. I specifically asked if the training bulletin would apply to public libraries and she said "yes, managers of libraries can tresspass you for open carrying" I pointed this out as a violation of state law and she said she would look into it and get back to me by tomarow afternoon. I asked her which supreme court ruling was refured to in the buletin and she did not know off hand but again she will find out and get back to me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    My guess is that they are talking about the vashon fire district case.
    :X

    Don't keep us in the dark!What did it say?
    NOTE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION, SEE RCWA 2.06.040



    Court of Appeals of Washington,
    Division 1.
    David M. ESTES, Appellant,
    v.
    [highlight= rgb(255, 255, 136);]VASHON[/highlight] MAURY ISLAND [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]FIRE[/highlight] PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 13, a political subdivision of
    the State of Washington, Susan Carleton, David Jennings, Jan Nielsen, Sharon
    Lee Nicholson, and Scott Rice, in their capacity as commissioners of [highlight= rgb(255, 255, 136);]Vashon[/highlight]
    Maury Island [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]Fire[/highlight] Protection District No. 13 and as individuals, and James
    Wilson, in his capacity as [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]fire[/highlight] chief and as an individual, Respondents.
    No. 55950-8-I.
    Oct. 3, 2005.

    COLEMAN, AGID and SCHINDLER, JJ.



    Unpublished Opinion

    PER CURIAM.
    RCW 9.41.290 and his rights under the state and federal constitutions. After answering the complaint, the District filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to CR 12(c). The Superior Court granted the motion and dismissed Estes' suit. Estes appeals.
    Estes raises a question of law that we review de novo. Fondren Klickitat County, 79 Wn.App. 850, 854, 905 P.2d 928 (1995) (equating a CR 12(b)(6) motion Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 749-50, 888 P.2d 147 (1995).
    Estes challenges the [highlight= rgb(255, 255, 136);]Vashon[/highlight] [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]Fire[/highlight] District policy on three grounds: statutory preemption of local firearms regulation; the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; and article I, section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. We address each claim.
    RCW 9.41.290 is the section of Washington's Uniform Firearm Act providing for preemption of municipal laws enacted on the subject of firearms regulation:
    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 RCW 9.41.300, which grants limited authority to local agencies to forbid possession of firearms in certain locations. RCW 9.41.300(2) provides in pertinent part:
    Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
    ...;
    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
    (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
    Because [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]fire[/highlight] district buildings and property are not among the enumerated premises for which the Legislature has granted local jurisdictions authority to act, Estes contends that by necessary implication, the Legislature has preempted the District's policy here. This contention depends entirely, however, on the unsupported assumption that the district's "policy" constitutes RCW 9.41.290 and .300.
    The principal case interpreting these statutes is Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 803, 808 P.2d 746 (1991). In Cherry, a Metro bus driver was terminated from his job for violation Metro's personnel policy prohibiting drivers from carrying a weapon while on duty or on Metro property. The driver challenged the dismissal, but it was upheld by an arbitrator and the Superior Court on summary judgment. This court reversed, reasoning in a split decision that the preemptive sweep of RCW 9.41.290 was broad and that where the Legislature intended to create an exemption, RCW 9.41.300 demonstrated that it would be stated expressly. Cherry v. Metropolitan Seattle, 57 Wn.App. 164, 167-68, 787 P.2d 73 (1990).
    The Supreme Court granted review and reversed this court. Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794. Finding the statute ambiguous and thus requiring judicial construction, the court noted that it had previously "interpreted the act in light of its penal nature" and concluded that the preemption statute "was enacted to reform that situation in which counties, cities, and towns could each enact conflicting local criminal codes...." Cherry, 116 Wn.2d at 800-01 (citing In re Olsen v. Delmore, 48 Wn.2d 545, 548-49, 295 P.2d 324 (1956)). The Cherry court accordingly held that the Legislature, in enacting the modern version of RCW 9.41.290, "sought to eliminate a multiplicity of Cherry, 116 Wn.2d at 801.
    While the precise issue before the Cherry court was a municipal employee's possession of firearms on the job, rather than the present question regarding visitors to [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]fire[/highlight] district property, we find the Supreme Court's reasoning applicable and controlling here. Because the [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]fire[/highlight] district policy here fall does not fall within the scope of the criminal firearms regulations that the Cherry court viewed as governed by RCW 9.41.290, we reject Estes' claim of statutory preemption.
    City of Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wn.2d 541, 754 P.2d 1241 (1988).
    As for his claim based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Estes fails to cite any authority for his contention that this provision of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the states and consequently to entities such as the District that are created by state law. We agree with the authority cited by the District holding to the contrary. Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus, 152 F.3d 522, 539 n. 18 (6th Cir.1998); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.1996); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.1992); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir.1982).
    Estes' claim that the District's policy violates article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution also fails. Washington courts have "consistently held that the right to bear arms in art. I, § 24 is not absolute, but instead is subject to 'reasonable regulation' by the State under its police power." City of Seattle v. Montana, 129 Wn.2d 583, 593, 919 P.2d 1218 (1996) (quoting Morris v. Blaker, 118 Wn.2d 133, 144, 821 P.2d 482 (1992)). "The scope of permissible regulation must depend upon a balancing of the public benefit to be derived from the regulation against the degree to which it frustrates the purpose of the constitutional provision." Second Amendment Found. v. City of Renton, 35 Wn.App. 583, 586, 668 P.2d 596 (1983).
    In Second Amendment Found., this court rejected a state constitutional challenge to a Renton ordinance prohibiting the carrying of firearms in places where alcoholic beverages are sold by the drink. We reasoned that the ordinance minimally affected the right to bear arms because it prevented the carrying of firearms only in bars and "[t]he benefit to public safety by reducing the possibility of armed conflict by persons under the influence of alcohol outweighs the general right to bear arms in defense of self and state." Second Amendment Found., 35 Wn.App. at 586-87. Similarly, we conclude that the limited effect on the general right to bear arms presented by the District's policy here is minimal in comparison to the obvious benefit to the public of enhancing the safety of firefighters and paramedics on the job.
    Affirmed.
    Wash.App. Div. 1,2005.
    Estes v. [highlight= rgb(255, 255, 136);]Vashon[/highlight] Maury Island [highlight= rgb(136, 255, 255);]Fire[/highlight] Protection Dist. No. 13
    Not Reported in P.3d, 129 Wash.App. 1042, 2005 WL 2417641 (Wash.App. Div. 1)
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    So does this mean the courts decided that public entities can regulate the carrying of firearms by its imployees ie. The library can say that library staff can not carry guns without violating RCW 290. or am I misreading it? please give me the small stupid child explanation.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Finding the statute ambiguous and thus requiring judicial construction, the court noted that it had previously "interpreted the act in light of its penal nature" and concluded that the preemption statute "was enacted to reform that situation in which counties, cities, and towns could each enact conflicting local criminal codes...."
    In other words, the court's unpublished opinion is that while localities cannot make it a criminal offense to carry in public places, they can require that you leave.

    While the precise issue before the Cherry court was a municipal employee's possession of firearms on the job, rather than the present question regarding visitors to fire district property, we find the Supreme Court's reasoning applicable and controlling here. Because the fire district policy here fall does not fall within the scope of the criminal firearms regulations that the Cherry court viewed as governed by RCW 9.41.290, we reject Estes' claim of statutory preemption.
    Essentially they are saying that localities cannot charge you with the crime of possession, but they can charge you with trespassing if you carry. Not good.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Here's the two things about this case. The Estes case is about the private area of a firehouse which the public can't usually go into anyway. The trespass authority of government is actually quite small from areas of public use and egress.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    The trespass authority of government is actually quite small from areas of public use and egress.
    How do you know this?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Here's the two things about this case. The Estes case is about the private area of a firehouse which the public can't usually go into anyway. The trespass authority of government is actually quite small from areas of public use and egress.
    Ahh. That makes more sense. The synopsis wasn't clear that was the case. Thanks!

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference (in effect) between a published and a non-published opinion?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference (in effect) between a published and a non-published opinion?
    Non-published opinions are not allowed to be cited in court cases.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference (in effect) between a published and a non-published opinion?
    Non-published opinions are not allowed to be cited in court cases.
    Thank you.

    Then as a matter of practical effect, does this mean the court (or you) disagrees with the previous poster's explanation - "Essentially they are saying that localities cannot charge you with the crime of possession, but they can charge you with trespassing if you carry."

    Maybe another question would be: are you saying that the court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference (in effect) between a published and a non-published opinion?
    Non-published opinions are not allowed to be cited in court cases.
    Thank you.

    Then as a matter of practical effect, does this mean the court (or you) disagrees with the previous poster's explanation - "Essentially they are saying that localities cannot charge you with the crime of possession, but they can charge you with trespassing if you carry."

    Maybe another question would be: are you saying that the court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above?
    No, they trespass you to make you leave the premises. The gun may be their reason but it is irrelevant because there is no crime of possession, you are legal to be carrying, just that the owner/manager is a ******* and doesn't want to respect you rights per the 2A and the State Constitution.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Thanks Lonnie. Unfortunately, that synopsis deals with a free speech case and some of the links in it don't work, and some link to decisions that are not relevant to the trespassing discussion, so it really doesn't shed any light.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference (in effect) between a published and a non-published opinion?
    Non-published opinions are not allowed to be cited in court cases.
    Thank you.

    Then as a matter of practical effect, does this mean the court (or you) disagrees with the previous poster's explanation - "Essentially they are saying that localities cannot charge you with the crime of possession, but they can charge you with trespassing if you carry."

    Maybe another question would be: are you saying that the court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above?
    I disagree that they can tresspass you if they are a municipality and the property is public owned. The only reasons you can be trespassed from public property is for comitting a crime on the property or you fail to comply with a lawful order. In my opinion niether of those have happened from simply carrying a pistol in a holster.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference (in effect) between a published and a non-published opinion?
    Non-published opinions are not allowed to be cited in court cases.
    Thank you.

    Then as a matter of practical effect, does this mean the court (or you) disagrees with the previous poster's explanation - "Essentially they are saying that localities cannot charge you with the crime of possession, but they can charge you with trespassing if you carry."

    Maybe another question would be: are you saying that the court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above?
    I disagree that they can tresspass you if they are a municipality and the property is public owned. The only reasons you can be trespassed from public property is for comitting a crime on the property or you fail to comply with a lawful order. In my opinion niether of those have happened from simply carrying a pistol in a holster.
    True, that's how I would argue the law myself.

    However, the language of the Appeals Court's unpublished opinion seems to lean towards exactly what I posted earlier. That is, the Appeals Court certainly seems to think that localities cannot charge you with the crime of possession, but that they can charge you with trespassing if you carry and refuse to leave.

    As it is an unpublished opinion, however, it does not have legal force and the theory it appears to put forth has not been tested in court (to the best of my knowledge). As Lonnie pointed out, the case involved areas of a public building that were not normally open to public access (for example, there are "staff only" areas at libraries), which would almost certainly be a factor in any ultimate ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court. I am inclined to think that the WSSC would rule that mere carry of a firearm is not grounds for trespass if it's on public property that is commonly open to the public, but until someone actually takes a case that far there's no way for anyone to be certain.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    No, they trespass you to make you leave the premises. The gun may be their reason but it is irrelevant because there is no crime of possession, you are legal to be carrying, just that the owner/manager is a ******* and doesn't want to respect you rights per the 2A and the State Constitution.
    If this were the case, then they could trespass one for any reason, anyplace onpublic property- which I wonder if the court would support?

    No one has specifically addressed it, but it seems thatthe court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above - right?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    No, they trespass you to make you leave the premises. The gun may be their reason but it is irrelevant because there is no crime of possession, you are legal to be carrying, just that the owner/manager is a ******* and doesn't want to respect you rights per the 2A and the State Constitution.
    If this were the case, then they could trespass one for any reason, anyplace onpublic property- which I wonder if the court would support?

    No one has specifically addressed it, but it seems thatthe court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above - right?
    Every business now have signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Which means if they tell you to leave, no reason given, you had better go because you will be charged with trespass. Public property is a different ball game with different rules set down by law, usually meaning you can't be trespassed except for breaking a law.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    No, they trespass you to make you leave the premises. The gun may be their reason but it is irrelevant because there is no crime of possession, you are legal to be carrying, just that the owner/manager is a ******* and doesn't want to respect you rights per the 2A and the State Constitution.
    If this were the case, then they could trespass one for any reason, anyplace onpublic property- which I wonder if the court would support?

    No one has specifically addressed it, but it seems thatthe court's ruling only applies specifically to the matter at issue in the case referenced above - right?
    Every business now have signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Which means if they tell you to leave, no reason given, you had better go because you will be charged with trespass. Public property is a different ball game with different rules set down by law, usually meaning you can't be trespassed except for breaking a law.
    Bear I think you are confused. We are talking about being trespassed from public property, not property open to the public like a business. The trespass that you are talking about I completely agree with you because it is private property. Wa. however has a legal defense to a trespass charge written into the RCW's that it is a defense if you complied with all lawful requirements to enter and it was opne to the general public.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Wa. however has a legal defense to a trespass charge written into the RCW's that it is a defense if you complied with all lawful requirements to enter and it was opne to the general public.
    Could you cite the RCW for us? This seems to relate to a question on another thread as to whether a sign constitutes a trespass notice.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Wa. however has a legal defense to a trespass charge written into the RCW's that it is a defense if you complied with all lawful requirements to enter and it was opne to the general public.
    Could you cite the RCW for us? This seems to relate to a question on another thread as to whether a sign constitutes a trespass notice.





    RCW 9A.52.090
    Criminal trespass — Defenses.

    [/b]In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

    (1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

    (2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

    (3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or

    (4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Wa. however has a legal defense to a trespass charge written into the RCW's that it is a defense if you complied with all lawful requirements to enter and it was opne to the general public.
    Could you cite the RCW for us? This seems to relate to a question on another thread as to whether a sign constitutes a trespass notice.
    Thanks for catching the RCW Agent47.

    Heresolong, a posting of a no trespassing sign is the only sign I know of that is valid, providing it has behavior that is construed as trespassing listed on it, because you have been notified by the signage. All other signs, to my knowledge are just a notice but not notification of trespassing.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    Could you cite the RCW for us? This seems to relate to a question on another thread as to whether a sign constitutes a trespass notice.
    Thanks for catching the RCW Agent47.

    Heresolong, a posting of a no trespassing sign is the only sign I know of that is valid, providing it has behavior that is construed as trespassing listed on it, because you have been notified by the signage. All other signs, to my knowledge are just a notice but not notification of trespassing.
    So for example a sign that said "Entering these premises with a firearm is considered trespassing" would be legitimate, a sign that says "No firearms allowed" is not?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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