• 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.

Port's "rules" are, in fact, "laws".

deanf

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

RCW 53.08.220

RCW 53.08.220
Regulations authorized — Adoption as part of ordinance or resolution of city or county, procedure — Enforcement — Penalty for violation.
(1) A port district may formulate all needful regulations for the use by tenants, agents, servants, licensees, invitees, suppliers, passengers, customers, shippers, business visitors, and members of the general public of any properties or facilities owned or operated by it, and request the adoption, amendment, or repeal of such regulations as part of the ordinances of the city or town in which such properties or facilities are situated, or as part of the resolutions of the county, if such properties or facilities be situated outside any city or town. The port commission shall make such request by resolution after holding a public hearing on the proposed regulations, of which at least ten days' notice shall be published in a legal newspaper of general circulation in the port district. Such regulations must conform to and be consistent with federal and state law. As to properties or facilities situated within a city or town, such regulations must conform to and be consistent with the ordinances of the city or town. As to properties or facilities situated outside any city or town, such regulations must conform to and be consistent with county resolutions. Upon receiving such request, the governing body of the city, town, or county, as the case may be, may adopt such regulations as part of its ordinances or resolutions, or amend or repeal such regulations in accordance with the terms of the request.

(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any violation of the regulations described in subsection (1) of this section is a misdemeanor which shall be redressed in the same manner as other police regulations of the city, town, or county, and it shall be the duty of all law enforcement officers to enforce such regulations accordingly.

(b) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, violation of such a regulation relating to traffic including parking, standing, stopping, and pedestrian offenses is a traffic infraction.

(c) Violation of such a regulation equivalent to those provisions of Title 46 RCW set forth in RCW 46.63.020 remains a misdemeanor.

Discussion:
While it seems optional that the port district have it's regulations approved by the local city or county, it is clear that rules passed by the port commission by resolution (their only legal mechanism for making rules) are laws, because violation of them subjects the violator to paragraph (2)(a), which makes violations a misdemeanor. This triggers preemption.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
RCW 53.08.220

RCW 53.08.220
Regulations authorized — Adoption as part of ordinance or resolution of city or county, procedure — Enforcement — Penalty for violation.
(1) A port district may formulate all needful regulations for the use by tenants, agents, servants, licensees, invitees, suppliers, passengers, customers, shippers, business visitors, and members of the general public of any properties or facilities owned or operated by it, and request the adoption, amendment, or repeal of such regulations as part of the ordinances of the city or town in which such properties or facilities are situated, or as part of the resolutions of the county, if such properties or facilities be situated outside any city or town. The port commission shall make such request by resolution after holding a public hearing on the proposed regulations, of which at least ten days' notice shall be published in a legal newspaper of general circulation in the port district. Such regulations must conform to and be consistent with federal and state law. As to properties or facilities situated within a city or town, such regulations must conform to and be consistent with the ordinances of the city or town. As to properties or facilities situated outside any city or town, such regulations must conform to and be consistent with county resolutions. Upon receiving such request, the governing body of the city, town, or county, as the case may be, may adopt such regulations as part of its ordinances or resolutions, or amend or repeal such regulations in accordance with the terms of the request.

(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any violation of the regulations described in subsection (1) of this section is a misdemeanor which shall be redressed in the same manner as other police regulations of the city, town, or county, and it shall be the duty of all law enforcement officers to enforce such regulations accordingly.

(b) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, violation of such a regulation relating to traffic including parking, standing, stopping, and pedestrian offenses is a traffic infraction.

(c) Violation of such a regulation equivalent to those provisions of Title 46 RCW set forth in RCW 46.63.020 remains a misdemeanor.

Discussion:
While it seems optional that the port district have it's regulations approved by the local city or county, it is clear that rules passed by the port commission by resolution (their only legal mechanism for making rules) are laws, because violation of them subjects the violator to paragraph (2)(a), which makes violations a misdemeanor. This triggers preemption.
Very good! So their corporation claim is not only bogus, but we knew that, but an out and out lie.
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
Very good! So their corporation claim is not only bogus, but we knew that, but an out and out lie.
And the other kicker is that rules must be in line with state and federal laws... clearly the prohibition on firearms isn't in line with the state preemption law.
 

deanf

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

Now what do we do with this? I am attempting to research their "Section 3, General Rule 16.a" which is the gun prohibition. I want to see the regulation, see which resolution number it was passed under, see if it was reviewed and codified by the City of SeaTac (where the airport is), and then go from there . . . .
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

deanf wrote:
Now what do we do with this? I am attempting to research their "Section 3, General Rule 16.a" which is the gun prohibition. I want to see the regulation, see which resolution number it was passed under, see if it was reviewed and codified by the City of SeaTac (where the airport is), and then go from there . . . .
We shouldn't now need any background information. It doesn't matter when or where it was reviewed or codified. Their regulations, according to this RCW, are required to conform with state law. State law preempts firearm regulation. We win, they lose.

Great research, deanf. Well done.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

I'll be posting more later, but I know a little bit more about this situation than most. You'll get blown away, and hell I'll be drafting up a letter.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

OK, found out more.

Firearms and Explosives:
a. No person, except for Port of Seattle Police Officers, Port of Seattle Certified
Wildlife Hazard Management personnel, and fully commissioned law enforcement
officers, shall carry firearms on the Airport. Other persons authorized by
municipal, state, or federal government carrying firearms on the Airport in
performance of their official duties shall have prior approval from the Port of
Seattle Chief of Police.


This comes from here:

http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/Rulereg12-22-07.pdf

These regs were passed in 1981.

A weak preemption bill passed in 1983. Second Amendment Foundation v. City of Renton essentially nullified it, and the Legislature reacted by passing the strong language that's in there today in 1985.

In 2004, the Port of Seattle asked the Legislature to pass a state law banning restricted access airport carry. The reason is that they supposedly had an incident where a person tried to carry a firearm across the screening checkpoint. The person who did so was detained by Port of Seattle PD. He demanded release because there was no state statute banning carry in a restricted access area, and as they were not federally sworn officers, they could not lawfully detain him. Port of Seattle PD ignored this citing this rule and turned him over to the US Marshals. The federal magistrate had to throw out the case because the unlawful detainment by the Port of Seattle PD tainted the detainment by the federal officers.

Now whether or not this incident actually happened, I'm not sure. The Seattle metro localities have a knack for saying "this incident occurred" when it actually didn't. Seattle PD was most famous for doing this for the "Green Lake Squirrel Rifle" incident, which Seattle PD officials, in getting the "case and carry law" passed (which essentially turned Washington into a green state).

The resulting law is the following:

(e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.

The Port of Seattle PD knows damned well that preemption applies to them. They also seem to be drinking the kool-aid that Mayor Greggie Nickels is drinking, thinking that this will cause people to stop carrying. It won't.

The Sequim case doesn't give license to any city to effect the carrying of firearms by the general public. Remember, the case was decided in the context of city contracting over space.

From the Sequim case:

The 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.


Emphasis mine.

PNSPA v. City of Sequim

I suggest that everyone read this opinion before any further comment is made on what this case does. "Does not create private cause of action" has nothing at all to do with the effect of preempted gun ordinances used against individuals. It's still a civil rights violation under Article 1 Section 24 and would probably be a 2nd amendment violation (at least after Nordyke is decided.

You know, the more this occurs the more I think that we need to follow Utah's example. It's pretty damned clear from the Cherry and PNSPA that these decisions don't touch general possession and carry, but it shows that the preemption language needs specific tightening.
 

computerizedfish

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Pullman, Washington, USA
imported post

Im more confused now. It seems that the ruling said that the rules attached to the permit to use the convention center do not apply to the pre-emption law because they requirements for the use of the convention center as private property and that they were not to be applied to the general public.

From this I am thinking that the ports rules do trigger pre-emption because they apply to the general public and the airport is public property that is run by the state.

Am I following this correctly or did I get lost:?

And I dont really follow lonnies last comment about following Utah.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
Lonnie: You fail to come to a point. Do we win, based on what I posted, or not?
We win. PNSPA flows from the Cherry decision. I'll try to dig up Cherry again.

I was making the point that this whole "trespass" crap would go away nicely (without involving the courts) if we had a melding of Utah, Oregon, and Ohio's preemption statute.

Utah Preemption:

76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

Ohio Preemption Law:

9.68 Right to bear arms - challenge to law.

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.

(2) “Firearm” has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

(D) This section does not apply to either of the following:

(1) A zoning ordinance that regulates or prohibits the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses;

(2) A zoning ordinance that specifies the hours of operation or the geographic areas where the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms may occur, provided that the zoning ordinance is consistent with zoning ordinances for other retail establishments in the same geographic area and does not result in a de facto prohibition of the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for commercial, retail, or industrial uses.

Effective Date: 03-14-2007

Oregon Preemption Statute:

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]
 

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

For anyone who wants to email the port PD chief, i've been going back and forth w/ his assistant.. email is below for -
Carla L. Macnab
Administrative Assistant
Office of the Chief
Port of Seattle Police Department
206.431.4010


macnab.c@portseattle.org
 

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

but assistant Macnab isn't writing her own responses, which means either the Chief or a lawyer is helping her, and she's doing the ol' copy and paste....so someone else is engaged enough to help her. So it is worth it to get it in front of them....
 

deanf

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

In reviewing the Port's rules (thanks for the link Lonnie) I had a random thought: The person bringing a gun to the airport for a flight out, wishing to check it, is violating their rule, and could be ejected.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:
It's still a civil rights violation under Article 1 Section 24 and would probably be a 2nd amendment violation (at least after Nordyke is decided.
An incorporation decision by a 9th Cir. panel is not binding on state courts, and federal courts cannot hear state law claims.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
It's still a civil rights violation under Article 1 Section 24 and would probably be a 2nd amendment violation (at least after Nordyke is decided.
An incorporation decision by a 9th Cir. panel is not binding on state courts, and federal courts cannot hear state law claims.
Cite please?
 

deanf

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

Well Assistant MacNab now has an email from me in her inbox . . . . It's probably a bit more than she will feel comfortable responding to without the help of counsel. It will be interesting to see who I get a reply from.
 
Top