If State preemption doesn't include State Agencies..

imported post

If the State Preemption Statute doesn't include State Government Agencies (hence the city/county/municipalities reference in the statute) does that mean that an agency such as the State Parks or State Ferries could make a statute that forbids the carry of firearms on their property?

imported post

Bader wrote:

If the State Preemption Statute doesn't include State Government Agencies (hence the city/county/municipalities reference in the statute) does that mean that an agency such as the State Parks or State Ferries could make a statute that forbids the carry of firearms on their property?

Click to expand...

They can only make rules that restrict the possession. Only the legislature can make statutes.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Bader wrote:

If the State Preemption Statute doesn't include State Government Agencies (hence the city/county/municipalities reference in the statute) does that mean that an agency such as the State Parks or State Ferries could make a statute that forbids the carry of firearms on their property?

Click to expand...

They can only make rules that restrict the possession. Only the legislature can make statutes.

Click to expand...

do you mean "restrict the discharge"? :lol:

imported post

Yes they could, and that's why it's curious that several years ago the State Parks Commission changed their possession rules to allow carry. They did it in order to "be in compliance with preemption."

I know this because I read the meeting minutes where the decision was made. I have since discarded them.

The idea that the preemption RCW doesn't apply to state agencies is only a legal theory, of course, unless someone can find some common law on it. To me it seems pretty clear.

imported post

There is some more info about WA State Parks at this link.

imported post

deanf wrote:

Yes they could, and that's why it's curious that several years ago the State Parks Commission changed their possession rules to allow carry. They did it in order to "be in compliance with preemption."

I know this because I read the meeting minutes where the decision was made. I have since discarded them.

The idea that the preemption RCW doesn't apply to state agencies is only a legal theory, of course, unless someone can find some common law on it. To me it seems pretty clear.

Click to expand...

I currently have emails out to two legislators who will most likely clarify it.

imported post

5jeffro7 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Bader wrote:

If the State Preemption Statute doesn't include State Government Agencies (hence the city/county/municipalities reference in the statute) does that mean that an agency such as the State Parks or State Ferries could make a statute that forbids the carry of firearms on their property?

Click to expand...

They can only make rules that restrict the possession. Only the legislature can make statutes.

Click to expand...

do you mean "restrict the discharge"? :lol:

Click to expand...

No I meant possession. I was referring to state agencies. Local municipalities are who can create statutes that only restrict the discharge.

imported post

deanf wrote:

Yes they could, and that's why it's curious that several years ago the State Parks Commission changed their possession rules to allow carry. They did it in order to "be in compliance with preemption."

I know this because I read the meeting minutes where the decision was made. I have since discarded them.

The idea that the preemption RCW doesn't apply to state agencies is only a legal theory, of course, unless someone can find some common law on it. To me it seems pretty clear.

Click to expand...

State agencies powers are limited by the grant of power authorizing their existence - hence, they are preempted from exercising power outside that grant.

Localities on the other hand are given broad power to regulate, hence the need in most states to have a specific preemption statute.

imported post

State agencies powers are limited by the grant of power authorizing their existence - hence, they are preempted from exercising power outside that grant.

Click to expand...

True, but most have a proviso in the section of law granting their existence something like: the executive of the agency shall have the power to create all rules and regulations necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the agency. Very broad.

imported post

It's some coincidence that I was at the Bellingham office of DOL today -- renewing my drivers license -- and was greeted by a very large sign pasted on the front door with a pistol and knife with the big red circle/slash and huge letters proclaiming No Firearms/Weapons. Below that was areference to RCW 9.41.270, which I think is a huge error on their part. (I took a pic of it but I can't figure out how to paste in into this post). Discretion being the better part of valor here I left the weapon in the car, as I didn't want to give them a test case.

The real question here seems to be on what authority can they prohibit carry, if not by preemption? Section .270 provides an almost unlimited right to carry with very specific exceptions, and Section .300 lists specific places where carry is prohibited. DOL offices (and other state offices) are NOT among those prohibitions. So are there any grounds to challenge the sign on the door? You guys are the experts -- let me hear your take on this.

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

It's some coincidence that I was at the Bellingham office of DOL today -- renewing my drivers license -- and was greeted by a very large sign pasted on the front door with a pistol and knife with the big red circle/slash and huge letters proclaiming No Firearms/Weapons. Below that was areference to RCW 9.41.270, which I think is a huge error on their part. (I took a pic of it but I can't figure out how to paste in into this post). Discretion being the better part of valor here I left the weapon in the car, as I didn't want to give them a test case.

The real question here seems to be on what authority can they prohibit carry, if not by preemption? Section .270 provides an almost unlimited right to carry with very specific exceptions, and Section .300 lists specific places where carry is prohibited. DOL offices (and other state offices) are NOT among those prohibitions. So are there any grounds to challenge the sign on the door? You guys are the experts -- let me hear your take on this.

Click to expand...

I have walked right past such signs while OC'ing after carefully reading them and verifying that the location is not on the RCW 9.41.300 prohibited list.

If they cite RCW 9.41.270 I'll walk right past it and confront the first person with authority I can find. I have done so at a state liquor store, which had a home-made sign posted like that. (Since minors are permitted in such places and the liquor is not being consumed there and it is [/b]not[/b] a place that's on the 9.41.300 list I walked right past the sign. I also informed the employee who was at the till that their sign was misleading and inconsistent with state law. The sign has been changed to simply say "NO MINORS" in bold-faced black text on white paper. (This store has a serious problem with straw-purchases for liquor.)

If they cite RCW 9.41.300 but are not one of the places actually listed in .300 I'll walk right past as well, but I've never come across this before.


A local state agency had a .270 sign on their door with a big red no-no circle. Another person (not me) contacted someone with legal knowledge at that agency and informed them that the sign was deliberately misleading and no weapons are actually prohibited in that agency. Lo and behold, the sign was removed.

imported post

Shad0w: Thanx for the feedback. You confirmed my own assessment of it, and now this brings up the larger question, which is whether to confront this at the state level. I was a bit confused by some of the dialogue with Dean about power of state agencies to make their own rules about providing for safety within the scope of their operations. The driver handout DOL gives everyone has messages from Chrissy Dearest and from the director of DOL, who I think needs to be the target of a response to this. It might help if several of us chip in with our own messages. Your thoughts?