Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: RCW 9.41.300 - Weapons prohibited in certain places

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,549

    Post imported post

    It seems no matter how many times I reread a section of RCWs, I notice something new.

    As all of you (should) know, RCW 9.41.300(1)(d) states:
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
    ...
    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
    What I've missed up until today was subsection 5:
    (5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.
    With few exceptions, I have not seen such signs in areas that are off limits to those places under the age of 21. While most of these places note that it's illegal for people under 21 to be in the area, very few of them (Pumphouse in Bellevue and Three Lions in Redmond) have the required signage stating that RCW 9.41.300 restricts the possession of firearms in the area.

    Ideally, I'd like to see the law changed such that it's illegal to carry while "under the influence" (similar to driving). It would provide a much more clear law that is easier to enforce, and addresses the real fear of the legislature. However, in the status quo, the lack of these signs in most 21+ places seems to indicate that the law is (even more) unenforceable. Any thoughts on this? I'll check for case law later, when I get home, but it seems that the lack of such signs would be a legal defense (presuming the person didn't acknowledge they knew of any wrongdoing, and shut up then requested a lawyer).
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    Post imported post

    I would say I see the sign about 75% of the time. It's funny, there is a bar within the secured area of SEATAC airport that has the no weapons allowed sign! Usually it's a green, I think, sign posted near the 21 age limit sign. Also, I noticed there is no, what I would call "waiver of prosecution" for lack of the no weapons sign.

    In other words, the RCW does not allow for an affirmative defense to prosecution just because the sign isn't there :-(.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,549

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    I would say I see the sign about 75% of the time. It's funny, there is a bar within the secured area of SEATAC airport that has the no weapons allowed sign! Usually it's a green, I think, sign posted near the 21 age limit sign.
    I wonder if it's a location thing. Apart from the two places I listed, I don't think any of the restaurants in Bellevue/Redmond/Kirklan, nor many of the bars in downtown Seattle, have the appropriate signs.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    Post imported post

    I don't know. First time I saw the sign was one of my first days OCing and I thought the place was mistaken by posting it, but since then I realize it was just the over 21 area (Mexican restaurant in Sedro Woolley).

    I edited my previous post to include the lack of an affirmative defense clause in the RCW.

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,244

    Post imported post

    Ideally, I'd like to see the law changed such that it's illegal to carry while "under the influence" (similar to driving).
    Washington state law covers being intoxicated while carrying a weapon above .10 and it does not matter that you are driving or as a passenger if you are in an area requiring a CPL you are in trouble. See the Attorney General's reply on several questions relating to local gun control.


    RCW 9.41.098(1)(d) which reads as follows:
    "(1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:
    "(d) Found concealed on a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, AND who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, having 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, as shown by chemical analysis of his breath, blood, or other bodily substance;

    Personally I see that RCW 9.41.270 would also come into play especially if that person were Open Carrying. See section (1)
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.



    Ken Eikenberry, The Attorney General wrote on November 16, 1984, AGO 1984 No. 27 in regard to a letter by Al Williams, State Senator, 32nd District. The Senator asked several questions relating to local gun control. You can read the letter and response here: http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?sect ... ve&id=7660 -

    The AG's answers:
    (1) The validity of a local ordinance making it either a criminal or civil offense to be in possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs will not turn on RCW 9.41.290, in the sense that such a local ordinance is, or is not, thereby statutorily preempted; instead, it will depend upon the effect which a particular ordinance has on constitutionally-protected rights.

    (2) A local ordinance providing for the mandatory forfeiture of a firearm in the possession of one who is intoxicated would be within the purview of RCW 9.41.290 and, therefore, would be required to be consistent with its state statutory counterpart (RCW 9.41.098) in order to be legally effective.

    Do you want to get your Oregon Concealed Handgun License? Sheriff Dickerson of Columbia County Oregon will be at the Puyallup WAC show in October. Everything you need to get your Oregon CHL is linked through the website or you can use the information from the website and make an appointment and apply at his office in St Helens, Oregon.
    http://www.washingtongunrights.com/ccso

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,549

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Ideally, I'd like to see the law changed such that it's illegal to carry while "under the influence" (similar to driving).
    Washington state law covers being intoxicated while carrying a weapon above .10 and it does not matter that you are driving or as a passenger if you are in an area requiring a CPL you are in trouble. See the Attorney General's reply on several questions relating to local gun control.


    RCW 9.41.098(1)(d) which reads as follows:
    "(1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:
    "(d) Found concealed on a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, AND who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, having 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, as shown by chemical analysis of his breath, blood, or other bodily substance;

    Personally I see that RCW 9.41.270 would also come into play especially if that person were Open Carrying. See section (1)
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.



    Ken Eikenberry, The Attorney General wrote on November 16, 1984, AGO 1984 No. 27 in regard to a letter by Al Williams, State Senator, 32nd District. The Senator asked several questions relating to local gun control. You can read the letter and response here: http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?sect ... ve&id=7660 -

    The AG's answers:
    (1) The validity of a local ordinance making it either a criminal or civil offense to be in possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs will not turn on RCW 9.41.290, in the sense that such a local ordinance is, or is not, thereby statutorily preempted; instead, it will depend upon the effect which a particular ordinance has on constitutionally-protected rights.

    (2) A local ordinance providing for the mandatory forfeiture of a firearm in the possession of one who is intoxicated would be within the purview of RCW 9.41.290 and, therefore, would be required to be consistent with its state statutory counterpart (RCW 9.41.098) in order to be legally effective.
    I'm talking about dropping the 21+ area requirement in favor of clear legislation that addresses the behavior that is really under consideration - drunken carry. It eliminates the stupidity of being able to enter a large number of restaurants and drink/carry on one side while being banned from crossing an invisible line on the other. For example, I went to the Wilde Rover last night in Kirkland. They had the proper "no firearms" sign - however, that applied only to the bar area. I could have stood on the other side of the wall that separates the bar from the restaurant and ordered drinks from the bartender without ever breaking the law. It seems asinine that moving a foot forward would put me in violation of the law, despite nothing else about the circumstance changing.

    Also, that copy of 9.41.098 is old. It is now (e), and the requirements are the same as those for driving. However, that deals only with forfeiture of a firearm for those who are both under the influence and in a place where a CPL is required. The AG opinion you cited states that the question of civil/criminal legislation is undecided. To quote: "Obviously, however, we would need to see the actual text of the ordinance in order to further evaluate it in line with such criteria."
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,244

    Post imported post

    that copy of 9.41.098 is old.
    Its not that it's old, its that I fat fingered the keyboard. I do not quote a RCW unless it comes from the http://apps.leg.wa.gov web site.


    Do you want to get your Oregon Concealed Handgun License? Sheriff Dickerson of Columbia County Oregon will be at the Puyallup WAC show in October. Everything you need to get your Oregon CHL is linked through the website or you can use the information from the website and make an appointment and apply at his office in St Helens, Oregon.
    http://www.washingtongunrights.com/ccso

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    The law is pretty unenforceable, you can get away with concealing in a bar and as long as a cop has no reason to search you then you're fine.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,549

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    The law is pretty unenforceable, you can get away with concealing in a bar and as long as a cop has no reason to search you then you're fine.
    Hence why I say that the law should be replaced. Just because I can be a scofflaw doesn't mean I want to be, when it's clear the law as written is poor and does not address the thing it wants to.

    Also, M1Gunr - that law is quite old - the entire wording of (e) has changed from what you copied and pasted out of the 1984 AG opinion.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    The law is pretty unenforceable, you can get away with concealing in a bar and as long as a cop has no reason to search you then you're fine.
    Hence why I say that the law should be replaced. Just because I can be a scofflaw doesn't mean I want to be, when it's clear the law as written is poor and does not address the thing it wants to.

    Also, M1Gunr - that law is quite old - the entire wording of (e) has changed from what you copied and pasted out of the 1984 AG opinion.
    Definitely It would be great if the law could be more practical but honestly I think if you are drunk and carrying that you being drunk doesn't make that dangerous but instead your actions are what would be dangerous, such as brandishing.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,091

    Post imported post

    Here's the great part...



    I hate hearing 'but there's a kid at the bar next to his dad so it's not off limits'..

    FALSE.

    The bar owner/manager is breaking the law having a minor there, and you TOO are breaking the law by sitting next to him while armed...

    I'm sick of the 'I saw a kid in there so it's free game' posts.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,549

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Here's the great part...



    I hate hearing 'but there's a kid at the bar next to his dad so it's not off limits'..

    FALSE.

    The bar owner/manager is breaking the law having a minor there, and you TOO are breaking the law by sitting next to him while armed...

    I'm sick of the 'I saw a kid in there so it's free game' posts.
    Did someone say that in this thread? I did say that, should it become an issue for any of you, there might be a flaw in the law's implementation. The fix for that, obviously, would be to make the law 'sane' - instead of saying "21+ places are off limits", make it say "you cannot be drunk and armed." This would address the legislative purpose as well as the difficulty of implementation/enforcement.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,091

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Here's the great part...



    I hate hearing 'but there's a kid at the bar next to his dad so it's not off limits'..

    FALSE.

    The bar owner/manager is breaking the law having a minor there, and you TOO are breaking the law by sitting next to him while armed...

    I'm sick of the 'I saw a kid in there so it's free game' posts.
    Did someone say that in this thread? I did say that, should it become an issue for any of you, there might be a flaw in the law's implementation. The fix for that, obviously, would be to make the law 'sane' - instead of saying "21+ places are off limits", make it say "you cannot be drunk and armed." This would address the legislative purpose as well as the difficulty of implementation/enforcement.
    In this thread, no. Not yet.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,549

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Here's the great part...



    I hate hearing 'but there's a kid at the bar next to his dad so it's not off limits'..

    FALSE.

    The bar owner/manager is breaking the law having a minor there, and you TOO are breaking the law by sitting next to him while armed...

    I'm sick of the 'I saw a kid in there so it's free game' posts.
    Did someone say that in this thread? I did say that, should it become an issue for any of you, there might be a flaw in the law's implementation. The fix for that, obviously, would be to make the law 'sane' - instead of saying "21+ places are off limits", make it say "you cannot be drunk and armed." This would address the legislative purpose as well as the difficulty of implementation/enforcement.
    In this thread, no. Not yet.
    Okay I've been reading a lot of technical documentation recently, which leads to skimming... Wanted to make sure I didn't miss something.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    725

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Here's the great part...



    I hate hearing 'but there's a kid at the bar next to his dad so it's not off limits'..

    FALSE.

    The bar owner/manager is breaking the law having a minor there, and you TOO are breaking the law by sitting next to him while armed...

    I'm sick of the 'I saw a kid in there so it's free game' posts.
    Did someone say that in this thread? I did say that, should it become an issue for any of you, there might be a flaw in the law's implementation. The fix for that, obviously, would be to make the law 'sane' - instead of saying "21+ places are off limits", make it say "you cannot be drunk and armed." This would address the legislative purpose as well as the difficulty of implementation/enforcement.
    In this thread, no. Not yet.
    Okay I've been reading a lot of technical documentation recently, which leads to skimming... Wanted to make sure I didn't miss something.
    I think techno was making a pre-emptive strike to discredit that argument before it inevitably would show up in this thread. The point being, even though the bar was non-compliant (allowed kid in/not posting gus signs) , it would not be a defense for a person to carry in the restricted space.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

Posting Permissions

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