Tacoma/Pierce Co. Health Department is in violation

swatspyder · Mar 3, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

Jeff Hayes · Mar 3, 2010

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.

Bill Starks · Mar 4, 2010

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.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

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

kwiebe · Mar 4, 2010

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.

kwiebe · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

Just looked at the attorney's letter again:

"...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..."

So, like the Seattle Parks case then. In that case, I suppose if you are carrying they just ask you to leave and refuse to give you service? Hmmm, a Health Dept refusing to serve a citizen...sounds like an interesting situation...

ak56 · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

kwiebe wrote:

Just looked at the attorney's letter again:

"...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..."

So, like the Seattle Parks case then. In that case, I suppose if you are carrying they just ask you to leave and refuse to give you service? Hmmm, a Health Dept refusing to serve a citizen...sounds like an interesting situation...

So if there is no criminal sanction, you can just ignore it and they won't do anything? Because if they try to tresspass you, there would be a criminal sanction imposed.

kwiebe · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

ak56 wrote:

kwiebe wrote:

Just looked at the attorney's letter again:

"...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..."

So, like the Seattle Parks case then. In that case, I suppose if you are carrying they just ask you to leave and refuse to give you service? Hmmm, a Health Dept refusing to serve a citizen...sounds like an interesting situation...

Click to expand...

So if there is no criminal sanction, you can just ignore it and they won't do anything? Because if they try to tresspass you, there would be a criminal sanction imposed.

Exactly. I think I will write the attorney and see if I can get him to explain what the non-criminal sanction would be for not complying with the rule.

heresolong · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

Here is the reply back from the General Counsel, flawed as it may be.....
<snip>
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).

<snip>

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.

The first case only applied to employees of the bus company. Does not apply to civilians riding the bus.

The second case only applied to areas of the fire department that were not open to the general public.

You might write a response pointing out that since you are not an employee the first is not relevant, and since you are not accessing areas of the building that are not open to the general public the second does not apply. They are seriously misreading these court cases in order to achieve the result that they wish to achieve.

Bill Starks · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

He also cites Estes v Vashon, an unpublished opinion that carries no weight with the courts.

Chan v Seattle (09-2-39574-8 SEA) does bear weight. He might want to read section 2.

Section 2 "The preemption clause does not exclude "rules & policies" from its reach. Rob Mckenna concluded that "the manner in which the prohibition might be imposed" is inconsequential to the preemption analysis.

heresolong · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

He also cites Estes v Vashon, an unpublished opinion that carries no weight with the courts.

True, but it is certainly valid to bring it up in legal discussion, as previously mentioned regarding Casad. The legal reasoning can be used, just not the precedent of a prior court case.

That being said, since they are interpreting it completely wrong it is actually an advantage to a discussion to be able to point out their incorrect application, putting them on the defensive regarding the use of court cases.

PS Do you have a link to Chan? Never mind. Found it myself of nwcdl.org.

[ulr] http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile;id=54[/url]

kparker · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

M1Gunr,

Where are you seeing a Section 2 in Chan? I can't find anything so titled in the PDF, nor to the words you are quoting from it. Did you mean to refer to a different case perhaps?

Bill Starks · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

kparker wrote:

M1Gunr,

Where are you seeing a Section 2 in Chan? I can't find anything so titled in the PDF, nor to the words you are quoting from it. Did you mean to refer to a different case perhaps?

Looks like I was reading the Reply in Support of Plantiff's motion for summery judgment. Section 2 is midway page 3.

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile;id=56

heresolong · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

kparker wrote:

M1Gunr,

Where are you seeing a Section 2 in Chan? I can't find anything so titled in the PDF, nor to the words you are quoting from it. Did you mean to refer to a different case perhaps?

I can't post it because it is a scan but...

"the City of Seattle's authority to regulate the possession...during public use of those facilities is preempted by state law...therefore Seattle's Department of Parks and Recreation's rule ... violates Washington law and, on that basis, is null and void."

Emphasis mine.

Bill Starks · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

1. The only way we are going to get this changed is to go to court.

2. The court case would center around the fact that they are denying public access to public services based on an illegal ban on firearms.

I agree.

heresolong · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

1. The only way we are going to get this changed is to go to court.

2. The court case would center around the fact that they are denying public access to public services based on an illegal ban on firearms.

You probably don't need a lawyer to file these papers, although there would be a filing fee.

1) I would suggest that the OP download a copy of the filing papers from the Chan case, edit them to include relevant info from this case, and drop them with Gregory Jacob, the lawyer for the Tacoma Pierce Health authority. Gives him advance notice that a lawsuit will be filed and he might actually do his job and suggest to admin that the rules be modified.

2) Might contact SAF also and ask what the process might be and how they could facilitate it. I'd chip in filing fees.

3) Might contact the Attorney General, Rob McKenna, and ask him about the legality of this type of sign now that Chan has been decided. If we can get him to issue a further ruling on "administrative rules" now that the case has been ruled on, that opinion could be hand delivered to each state facility that is non-compliant.

kparker · Mar 4, 2010

imported post

M1Gunr,

Looks like I was reading the Reply in Support of Plantiff's motion for summery judgment.

Got it, thanks!

I'd just note that this document is the claim of one of the parties, not the conclusion of the court. I.e. it's a nice summary of what we happen to think is true, but it has no particular authority.

G20-IWB24/7 · Jan 4, 2011

The sign is now gone...although, I've been there roughly 400 times in the last 2 years to visit the vital records office, each time while CCing.

Replaced with "Smoke-free campus" "Service Animals Welcome" and a placard designating nursing mothers are welcomed.

Thanks, M1gunr for taking the lead on this for me. They must've finally gotten the message somehow...

-G20

TechnoWeenie · Jan 5, 2011

M1Gunr said:
amzbrady wrote:
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.

Maybe it didn't smell fresh? You should throw some baby powder in with the next one, to freshen things up.. :lol:

Bill Starks · Jan 5, 2011

The last I heard from their attorney was that they were going to enforce the no weapons policy and there was no swaying him. Maybe he actually took the time to read the AG reports that I sent over and got the hint that what he was doing wasn't legal.
In either case, score one for 2A rights.....

Tacoma/Pierce Co. Health Department is in violation

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher