Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Tacoma/Pierce Co. Health Department is in violation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Visited the TPCHD today for work, and noticed that there was a sign on the doors that looked like this:



    I guess they could put the words "illegally-carried" in front and be OK, but then again, that's anywhere. My understanding is that only the "sterile" areas of the Court Buildings and Police Departments are allowed to require patrons be"weapons free." Other public offices/buildings are under state preemption, and are "carry-able" regardless of what the local officials may say.

    I guess they wantpeople to be physically healthy, butstupid enough to not know their rights. (This picture was taken at the entrance where a person would go to get a copy of their birth certificate.)

    Anybody have a form letter I can use?



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    They don't actually say "No firearms permitted", they say "no firearms inside".

    Presumably if you walk through the door carrying, the sign magically changes.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    "ooby ooby doo ister gay" Sorry just had to say it.

    I just ignored the sign at Bellingham DOL, NavyLt wrote Olympia and it was gone with a day or so. And none of the workers said one thing to me about my firearm and they actually seemed to be pleasant to deal with and were laughing and joking with me.

    Did you go in? Just curious. And Navy has some pretty good letter writing abilities. Maybe you can plagiarize one.
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    I was there for work (and CCing), but of course I went in. I wouldn't let a little piece of pre-empted and void, paper-waste of tax-payer money stop me...

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Yea sometimes CC is prudent especially if you are working.
    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)

  6. #6
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    edit - disregard
    <which office location was this?>

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lewis County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    I guess they wantpeople to be physically healthy, butstupid enough to not know their rights.
    Welcome to town!

    Wait,this wasin Tacoma? Fooled me big time. :?

    MrGray wrote:
    Presumably if you walk through the door carrying, the sign magically changes.
    QED.

  8. #8
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Hello,
    I am writing to you regarding a sign at an entrance door to the Pierce County Health Department; specifically the sign at the entrance that states, among other rules, that no weapons are allowed in the building (see the attched pic). City, County & State run facilities fall under preemption and I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that since Washington State is a preemption state, meaning that unless specifically stated in Washington State or Federal law, possession and carry of a firearm, whether open or concealed (with the required license) is legal in all public areas not listed as restricted from carry in RCW 9.41.300 and Federal Law 18 US Code 930. The Pierce County health Department is run by a county municipality thus making the sign a direct violation of RCW 9.41.290 (State Preemption). The Washington State Constitution is clear on the right of the citizen of self defense and the possession of firearms (see Article 1, Section 24) as such, the rule of "No Firearms" is therefore unenforceable and I request that in view of the facts I have presented, I request that you (1) remove the above-mentioned sign, (2) immediately cease any enforcement of the policy stated, and (3) instruct all affected employees about the issues addressed here.

    RCW 9.41.290 (State Preemption) "The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality."

    RCW 9.41.300 (Weapons Prohibited in Certain Places) 18 USC 930 - Sec. 930. (Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities)




    Questions? Comments?


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    PNW, Washington, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    The sign also says "Tobacco free", yet you can carry it inside.

    Maybe it means that you can not use the tobacco inside.

    So, in the same way, take your weapon inside, but just do not use it.

    Take your pet inside, but do not pet it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lewis County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    Okay guys here's the plan. We give the next guy going in there a dog...and hope he doesn't know how to use it! :?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    DaemonForce wrote:
    Okay guys here's the plan. We give the next guy going in there a dog...and hope he doesn't know how to use it! :?
    Give him a cat. No one knows how to use one of those.

  12. #12
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    So it's an illegal sign.

    Walk in.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  13. #13
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Million Dollar question... How do we get the post office to change policy so we can carry and not have to disarm ourselves when we go to get our mail? Or at least make it legal to have a firearm on their property so we can leave our firearms unattended in our locked vehicles to be stolen and used by a criminal.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    TPCHD might try and invoke the "This is a Rule, not a Law or Ordinance" BS that the City of Seattle tried. Just send them a copy of King Co Superior Court decision to show how that worked out for Seattle. Wonderful opportunity to use the court decision to all's benefit.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    Million Dollar question... How do we get the post office to change policy so we can carry and not have to disarm ourselves when we go to get our mail? Or at least make it legal to have a firearm on their property so we can leave our firearms unattended in our locked vehicles to be stolen and used by a criminal.
    Make the Post Office a State Agency. Federal or quasi Federal agencies are not subject to State Preemption.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  16. #16
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    Million Dollar question... How do we get the post office to change policy so we can carry and not have to disarm ourselves when we go to get our mail? Or at least make it legal to have a firearm on their property so we can leave our firearms unattended in our locked vehicles to be stolen and used by a criminal.
    I've sent not less than 10 letters to the Federal AG office in Tacoma & DC. I even wrote to the US Postal Inspection Service HQ in Seattle. In 1.5 years I have not gotten one response.

  17. #17
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    Million Dollar question... How do we get the post office to change policy so we can carry and not have to disarm ourselves when we go to get our mail? Or at least make it legal to have a firearm on their property so we can leave our firearms unattended in our locked vehicles to be stolen and used by a criminal.
    I've sent not less than 10 letters to the Federal AG office in Tacoma & DC. I even wrote to the US Postal Inspection Service HQ in Seattle. In 1.5 years I have not gotten one response.
    What about a petition. There has to be something we can do to make it so we can in the least be legal to get our mail after hours, in the public area.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    What's the big deal about a post office anyway? Of all the federal buildings....

    I can possibly understand disarming before entering a courtroom, but what's the reasoning for a post office? (other than employees going "postal")

  19. #19
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Here is the reply back from the General Counsel, flawed as it may be.....


    from Gregory Jacoby <GAJ@mcgavick.com>
    to me
    cc Kathie Wise <kwise@tpchd.org>
    date Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:25 PM
    subject Tacoma Pierce County Health Department
    mailed-by mcgavick.com

    hide details 7:25 PM (1 hour ago)

    Dear Mr. Starks,
    I am the General Counsel for the Tacoma Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) and I am responding to your email dated February 18, 2010 in which you question the legality of the TPCHD's policy to make its building "weapons-free," as evidenced by a sign at the entrance to the building at 3629 South D Street. For the reasons set forth below, the Department does not agree with your analysis and will not be changing either its policy or its sign.

    As stated in RCW 9.41.290, local laws and ordinances related to the use, possession, and sale of firearms are preempted by state law. However, the scope of the State's preemption in firearm possession is limited to local penal laws passed by a local legislative body. The State's preemption of firearm regulations does not extend to the internal policies of local agencies.

    In Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a city bus driver was discharged from employment for carrying a firearm on duty in violation of the city's employment policy. 116 Wn.2d 794, 808 P.2d 746 (1991). The Supreme Court held that RCW 9.41.290 did not preempt internal employment policies of government employers. The Court concluded that the preemption statute was meant to address local penal codes regulating the general public's right to possess firearms, not the employment policies of government employers. As such, the Court ruled that the preemption provision did not apply to the city's internal employment policies.

    More recently, the Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue in the unpublished opinion, Estes v. Vashon Maury Island Fire Protection District. 2005 WL 2417641 (Wn.App.Div.1). In that case, the Court upheld a fire district's policy to prohibit visitors from carrying firearms in fire stations. The Court reasoned that the statute only applied to laws and ordinances, it did not address the internal policies of government agencies.

    TPCHD's weapons-free policy and sign is similar to the circumstances of Vashon Maury Island Fire Protections District because, like the fire district, TPCHD is not imposing a criminal sanction, it is not passing an ordinance pursuant to its legislative authority, and it is not applying its rule to the general public outside of its own facility. Furthermore, the impact on the public's right to carry a gun is minimal in light of the benefit to the safety of public employees and visitors engaged in the administration of public health.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Department will not be changing its policy that weapons are not allowed in TPCHD buildings, nor will we be removing the sign.


    Gregory A. Jacoby
    McGavick Graves, P.S.
    1102 Broadway, Suite 500
    Tacoma, WA 98402
    253-627-1181 (office)
    253-627-2247 (fax)
    gaj@mcgavick.com

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    Is it city owned? Is it run by the city?

    It's preempted if it is, just as they can not prevent you from carrying in city parks, as we saw in the recent Seattle case.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  21. #21
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    Are they implying their rule does not apply to the general public? Or that, since they are not applying a rule to the general public, they can ban firearms from their property.

    it is not applying its rule to the general public outside of its own facility.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    It looks likeMr. Jacoby istrying to use employment laws against the general public, that wont pass muster. The cites are all employees vs employer, Mr. Jacoby needs to go back to law school.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    Is it city owned? Is it run by the city?

    It's preempted if it is, just as they can not prevent you from carrying in city parks, as we saw in the recent Seattle case.
    Tacoma / Pierce County Health Department.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    They are just trying the same line of Bologna that the Port gave DeanF.
    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)

  25. #25
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    The attorney's letter is laughable. Why even include the paragraph pertaining to employees?

    Obviously a smokescreen attempt. FAIL.

    To me, the bottom line issue is, is it public or private property? Sounds like it's public, so they're pre-empted.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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