funny thing is the WAC doesnt list 388-73-104
Thread: Double Take on a Sign
Had some business at the Department of Child and Family Services office in Bremerton, Washington. Sign by the front door made me do a double take:
It took a couple reads to make sure they weren't illegally prohibiting carry but as near as I can tell, they aren't. OC/CC is still fine. Wasn't carrying at the time (work) so I can't say what the reaction to an OC is, but it doesn't appear to be illegally restricted.
Just FYI for anyone else who happens to need to go there.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi
As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.
funny thing is the WAC doesnt list 388-73-104
From what I can tell, the WAC was repealed...
Being a gov't building, and if not part of a courthouse, it is indeed violating pre-emption.
The WAC they listed was pertaining to requiring foster homes to lock up their guns and keep them away from children, and not carry them in child care facilities (unless the child was supervised and had taken a hunters safety course).
The RCW is standard RCW fare we know so well.
Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.
Cool! "But officer, supervisor, whomever, my gun and live ammunition are NOT classified as illegal in the RCW's!" I love the stupidity of some of this (on their part...)
NavyLT wrote:That is exactly how I read it.Cool! "But officer, supervisor, whomever, my gun and live ammunition are NOT classified as illegal in the RCW's!" I love the stupidity of some of this (on their part...)
As I read it the sign says that I am not allowed to break the law while on their property. Breaking the law by carrying illegal firearms or ammunition must be okay elsewhere though. It's like having a sign at a school read: "Killing sprees committed using illegal weapons are not allowed here"
City of Redmond, Wa.
9.32.090 Firearms and explosives.
It is unlawful to shoot, fire, or explode any firearms, rockets, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to carry any firearm or to shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, BB gun, or use any slingshot or other propelling device wherein the applied human energy or force is artificially aided, directed or added to in any park, except in such designated recreational areas as may be designated by the director and/or law enforcement officials acting in official capacity. (Ord. 1244 § 2 (part), 1985: Ord. 1074 § 1 (part), 1982).
So can I take pellet gun practice on it?
Right thru the "No pistols" sign
I know the answer, but it is soooo tempting....
I agree with FMCDH. I was at the IRS office the other day and there was a big sign that said "NO Recording" and then went on with some very confusing verbiage to detail all the valid reasons and ways that you were allowed to record audio and video in their office. However, a casual inspection of the sign yields a greatly different message. I think these people are just expecting the less interested and less intelligent to take away the easy message and give in.
So in effect, the city of Redmond has had laws since the eighties trying to ban the carry of firearms in their parks even though it is pre-empted? This should not be tolerated.
I have been away for awhile. How is the case in Redmond going where the forum member was stopped and arrested at gunpoint? My daughters older sister was harrassed by the police the other day in an unrelated incident. The Police in Redmond are getting an attitude lately. Time for an Open Carry picnic in town.
The way this sign is worded, it implies that firearms are illegal. It's in the structure of the sentence.
There is a sign at the Bellingham offices that says no weapons allowed. Doesn't try to state any rcw's or wac's.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
sudden valley gunner wrote:I'd walk right past it open-carrying then.There is a sign at the Bellingham offices that says no weapons allowed. Doesn't try to state any rcw's or wac's.