Maybe Im crazy but.....

imported post

WAC Code 504-26-13 (http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=18&X=514111905&p=1)

..ban of firearms on university campus

is enforced by:


RCW 28B.30.150 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.30.150)
(1) Have full control of the university and its property of various kinds, except as otherwise provided by law.


however this doesnt seem to be enforceablevia RCW 9.41.60 subsection 9 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060)

I dunno maybe this has been hashed to death before but it seemed odd to me. If it is provided by law that you are allowed to posess an unloaded firearm which is secured in a "secure wrapper" (definition?) by law, then that would make the originalstatue of a complete ban of firearmson a college campus unenforceable by subsection 1 of RCW 28B.30.150. The college would only be able to enforce that it is secure. this all assumes that youare legally able to posess a firearm in the first place of course, and that there is no case law to the contrary.

imported post

RCW 9.41.060(9) is just one of several exceptions to the prohibition of concealed carry without a license, carrying loaded in a vehicle without a license, and leaving a firearm in an unlocked car. I don't think that section really falls under "except as otherwise provided by law" in 28B.30.150.

However, I am curious to understand exactly where this aspect of the regulatory authority granted to the boards of regents allegedly comes from. What is the legal interpretation of "full control" of university property, and where do restrictions on that control come from? I mean, it certainly seems to me that the Washington constitution is a pretty strong "except as otherwise provided by law" here - I'm quite certain a board of regents couldn't get away with trying to deny freedom of speech or religion on campus, after all.

Definitely something that's interesting to consider. I'd really like to see that chain of legal logic that starts with RCW 28B.30.150 and ends with "therefore boards of regents have the authority to forbid individuals from possessing firearms on campus," if indeed there is one.

imported post

I guess i wasnt specifically providing for a loaded firearm, only that the complete ban is illegal. If its provided by law you may posess an unloaded firearm then you cannot ban them completely under the statutes above.

Does that help? Helps me, if its legal for me to have an unloaded firearm....fine. I'll unload it before i go to school at night, keep it with me, and then load it when i leave. That at least lets me have it when im not at school so i dont have to be unarmed all the way there and any place i go afterwards.

imported post

Stealth Potato wrote:

........... I'd really like to see that chain of legal logic that starts with RCW 28B.30.150 and ends with "therefore boards of regents have the authority to forbid individuals from possessing firearms on campus," if indeed there is one.

Click to expand...

Probably isn't any chain. The Boards of Regents just went ahead and did it and were never challenged on it. This would be in line with the way most things that violate the Constitution get enacted.

imported post

What I was told when I registered my firearms on base was that a secured wrapper is something that prohibits you from having immediate access to such firearm. E.g. wrapping it up in a towel or blanket or what not is not considered secure. Being in the handgun case is preferred. Something that has a zipper, such as a bookbag or the like, is acceptable.

imported post

G27 wrote:

What I was told when I registered my firearms on base was that a secured wrapper is something that prohibits you from having immediate access to such firearm. E.g. wrapping it up in a towel or blanket or what not is not considered secure. Being in the handgun case is preferred. Something that has a zipper, such as a bookbag or the like, is acceptable.

Click to expand...

What the military requires and what the state law requires are two different things. The military is paranoid to an extreme, state law is reasonable. Did I really just says that state law was reasonable?

imported post

G27 wrote:

What I was told when I registered my firearms on base was that a secured wrapper is something that prohibits you from having immediate access to such firearm. E.g. wrapping it up in a towel or blanket or what not is not considered secure. Being in the handgun case is preferred. Something that has a zipper, such as a bookbag or the like, is acceptable.

Click to expand...

i was sortof hoping that a retention holster would count as a "secure wrapper". :celebrate:celebrate

imported post

rysa wrote:

G27 wrote:

What I was told when I registered my firearms on base was that a secured wrapper is something that prohibits you from having immediate access to such firearm. E.g. wrapping it up in a towel or blanket or what not is not considered secure. Being in the handgun case is preferred. Something that has a zipper, such as a bookbag or the like, is acceptable.

Click to expand...

i was sortof hoping that a retention holster would count as a "secure wrapper". :celebrate:celebrate

Click to expand...

A hard plastic case that can be locked like most new guns come in will work and I believe even a soft case that the zipper is lockable will suffice. But then I am not a lawyer either. But these two methods are what I use and have even been on Fort Lewis to do some shooting and never had a problem.