Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: We would prefer you not carry a firearm

  1. #1
    Regular Member SnarlyWino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, United States
    Posts
    375

    Post imported post

    I was visiting one of our local liquor stores OC this afternoon and was in the store for almost ten minutes when I heard the clerks cackling about something. Soon one of them walks up to me and says "We would prefer you not carry your firearm inside our liquor store."

    "O.K." I said politely, "But I am within my rights as a Washington State resident in doing so."

    "I know, it just makes a little nervous." she reply's and walks away.

    I am thinking to my self "O.k, are you asking me to leave? Would you like me to cover it up? What?!" But nothing more was said and my wife and I continue shopping with no further incident.

    I would have loved to engage this gal in further conversation, but it was over as soon as it started. Was there a different way to handle this?

    Snarly :?
    Keep Calm and Carry On,

    Snarly

    Pro Deo, Pro Familia, Pro Patria

  2. #2
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    I dont think they can say squat. I dont think liquor stores as of yet in WA. are privatly owned. All state, so state law prevails. One of the other guys here will give you an RCW when they see it. Happy Trails.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  4. #4
    Regular Member SnarlyWino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, United States
    Posts
    375

    Post imported post

    It was definitely one of the state owned ones, so I know I was not violating any RCWs and they really can't say anything, I would just have preferred a chance to politely explain to her that this was the case.
    Keep Calm and Carry On,

    Snarly

    Pro Deo, Pro Familia, Pro Patria

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    If it's state owned, they can still make their own policy. They can't criminalize it, but they can ask you to leave. State preemption does not include state agencies or state owned property.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    I was under the impression that you have to be 21 to go into the Liquor store so therefore it was off-limits to weapons just like a bar

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Aaron,

    The short answer is no—the preemption statute does not apply to state agencies. A state agency could not, however, criminalize the possession of firearms– the Legislature would have to do that. Although it’s not possible to predict how a court would view specific agency rules limiting firearms, there are certainly examples where agencies have done so. I am pasting a longer explanation from staff that provides some case history and examples that may be of interest to you.

    Sincerely,
    Rachel
    _________________________________________
    Rachel Smith
    Legislative Assistant to Rep. Dave Upthegrove
    Phone: (360) 786-7868
    Webpage: http://hdc.leg.wa.gov/members/upthegrove/index.asp
    Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000


    The preemption section, by its own terms, applies only to local jurisdictions. Under the state constitution, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt and enforce public safety and health laws unless in conflict with the general laws of the state. RCW 9.41.290 expresses the Legislature's intent to limit the authority of local jurisdictions to pass firearms laws. Although this preemption language is fairly broad, in two cases the Washington Supreme Court has upheld local firearms policies or regulations against a challenge that they were preempted by RCW 9.41.290. In the first case, Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794 (1991), the Court held that RCW 9.41.290 is not preemptive of the authority of a municipal employer to regulate or prohibit a municipal employee's possession of firearms while on the job or in the workplace. The Court determined that the Legislature, by adopting the preemption statute, intended to eliminate a multiplicity of local criminal laws relating to firearms and to advance uniformity in criminal firearms regulation, and that the "laws and ordinances" preempted are laws of application to the general public, not internal rules for employee conduct. In a more recent case, Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342 (2006), the Court upheld the authority of the city of Sequim to impose conditions on the sale of firearms at a gun show being held in the city's convention center. The conditions imposed by the city were a part of a permit for private use of its property, and were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.

    State agencies are generally given the authority to adopt rules to administer their programs. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has adopted a rule that generally prohibits the discharge of firearms in upland state park areas (WAC 352-32-120). Many universities and colleges have adopted rules prohibiting possession of firearms on campuses, and other state agencies have adopted rules prohibiting firearms in certain places (e.g., Office of Administrative Hearings facilities, facilities operated by the Washington State School for the Blind or School for the Deaf, grounds of horse racing associations, and licensed child care centers). I am not aware of any legal challenges to these rules. As to whether or not the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission could adopt a rule prohibiting possession of firearms on state parks, I do not know whether a challenge to the rule would be upheld.


  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    Bovaloe wrote:
    I was under the impression that you have to be 21 to go into the Liquor store so therefore it was off-limits to weapons just like a bar
    Common misconception, but not true. Minors may enter a liquor store.
    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Son_of_Perdition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    SW , Washington, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Bovaloe wrote:
    I was under the impression that you have to be 21 to go into the Liquor store so therefore it was off-limits to weapons just like a bar
    It's ok to bring your kids into a Liquor store. No Liquor is being consumed just purchased. Same as buying a bottle of wine from Safeway with your kids.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    If it's state owned, they can still make their own policy. They can't criminalize it, but they can ask you to leave. State preemption does not include state agencies or state owned property.
    All liquor stores in WA are state owned/operated. It is perfectly fine to OC/CC in one. They can squawk all they want to but state preemption covers the premises.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117

    Post imported post

    SnarlyWino wrote:
    Was there a different way to handle this?
    Smile a genuine smile, and say something friendly in an attempt to put her at ease.
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    If it's state owned, they can still make their own policy. They can't criminalize it, but they can ask you to leave. State preemption does not include state agencies or state owned property.
    All liquor stores in WA are state owned/operated. It is perfectly fine to OC/CC in one. They can squawk all they want to but state preemption covers the premises.
    I don't think I've seen that specific preemption. Can you cite it for me? I can't find it. The only Preemption I found was the one that applied to local and county operated/run organizations/property. Is that the one you're talking about, or did you read something else?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Which store was it? I could pop in and make OC a slightly more common occurrence for them.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    They can squawk all they want to but state preemption covers the premises.
    The State cannot preempt itself. That is a legal absurdity. Preemption is the wrong argument in this case.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    They can squawk all they want to but state preemption covers the premises.
    The State cannot preempt itself. That is a legal absurdity. Preemption is the wrong argument in this case.
    This.

    Although it doesn't cover state agencies, the state agencies can not make it unlawful for a citizen to carry a firearm on the property, they can, however, create rules against it.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    We have covered this before, a state liquor store cannot ban OC. They are a public area and are subject to preemption. http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...;sa=view;id=49


    from
    Hill, Earl R <EH@liq.wa.gov>




    Cc


    "McKim, Bea M" <BMK@liq.wa.gov>,


    "Hilt, Sandy L" <SH@liq.wa.gov>,


    "O'Donnell, Charles J" <COD@liq.wa.gov>


    Date Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM


    Subject RCW 9.41.300 & Liquor stores


    Hello Mr. Starks,


    My name is Earl Hill and I’m a District Manager for the Liquor Control Board


    covering the Tacoma area.


    I’m responding to your concern regarding a recent shopping experience at our


    retail store # 122 at 72
    nd and Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. I have reviewed the


    incident as described and it appears that while you were shopping, a customer


    initially noticed your firearm and commented that you were not allowed to have


    one in the store. Our store employees overheard this and supported that you


    were not allowed to carry while the store. Upon reviewing the signs posted in the


    store; I have determined that the signs were meant to be advisory for our staff


    and not for our retail customers. Our store employees were misinformed about


    the intent of the sign and I have authorized their removal.


    Let me apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We value


    customer feedback and I appreciate you letting me know about this incident. Let


    me know if you wish to discuss further by calling or emailing me at your


    convenience.


    Thank you


    Earl Hill
    , District Manager Office: 253/471-5338 Cell: 253/370-2250


    Roberson Bldg Ste 208 Fax: 360/704-5021
    EH@LIQ.WA.GOV


    6240 Tacoma Mall Blvd

    Tacoma WA 98409-6819
    Live Free or Die!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    We have covered this before, a state liquor store cannot ban OC. They are a public area and are subject to preemption. http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...;sa=view;id=49


    from Hill, Earl R <EH@liq.wa.gov>




    Cc


    "McKim, Bea M" <BMK@liq.wa.gov>,


    "Hilt, Sandy L" <SH@liq.wa.gov>,


    "O'Donnell, Charles J" <COD@liq.wa.gov>


    Date Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM


    Subject RCW 9.41.300 & Liquor stores


    Hello Mr. Starks,


    My name is Earl Hill and I’m a District Manager for the Liquor Control Board


    covering the Tacoma area.


    I’m responding to your concern regarding a recent shopping experience at our


    retail store # 122 at 72nd and Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. I have reviewed the


    incident as described and it appears that while you were shopping, a customer


    initially noticed your firearm and commented that you were not allowed to have


    one in the store. Our store employees overheard this and supported that you


    were not allowed to carry while the store. Upon reviewing the signs posted in the


    store; I have determined that the signs were meant to be advisory for our staff


    and not for our retail customers. Our store employees were misinformed about


    the intent of the sign and I have authorized their removal.


    Let me apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We value


    customer feedback and I appreciate you letting me know about this incident. Let


    me know if you wish to discuss further by calling or emailing me at your


    convenience.


    Thank you


    Earl Hill, District Manager Office: 253/471-5338 Cell: 253/370-2250


    Roberson Bldg Ste 208 Fax: 360/704-5021 EH@LIQ.WA.GOV


    6240 Tacoma Mall Blvd

    Tacoma WA 98409-6819
    To me, that looks like the administrators of the liquor control have the authority to restrict it if they choose to. They just choose not to. They can not make it unlawful, but they can, if they choose to, restrict it as a rule. This is how I interpret it, anyway.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    They are a public area and are subject to preemption.
    Would you care to explain your legal theory? That's not my reading of the RCW. I'd be interested in yours.

    The email appears to be a policy decision, based on what we are not sure. Their reasoning is not explained in the email.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    They are a public area and are subject to preemption.
    Would you care to explain your legal theory? That's not my reading of the RCW. I'd be interested in yours.

    The email appears to be a policy decision, based on what we are not sure. Their reasoning is not explained in the email.
    I agree. The email appears to simply be their policy that they choose to enact. They can restrict carry if they choose to, but thankfully, most state agencies don't.

  20. #20
    Regular Member SnarlyWino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, United States
    Posts
    375

    Post imported post

    geojohn wrote:
    SnarlyWino wrote:
    Was there a different way to handle this?
    Smile a genuine smile, and say something friendly in an attempt to put her at ease.
    I did smile a genuine smile, just not sure what I could have said that would have put her to ease.

    Brad, East Sprague between Farr and University.

    It does intrigue me that this has become such a heated preemption debate. I was not the least bit concerned about preemption at the time, just the fact that the RCW makes no accommodation for liquor stores and that they could have asked me to leave or trespass me just as any other business, municipal or otherwise, has the right to do. Just my initial thoughts.

    Carry On,
    Snarly
    Keep Calm and Carry On,

    Snarly

    Pro Deo, Pro Familia, Pro Patria

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    They are a public area and are subject to preemption.
    Would you care to explain your legal theory? That's not my reading of the RCW. I'd be interested in yours.

    The email appears to be a policy decision, based on what we are not sure. Their reasoning is not explained in the email.
    Bill can explain it better but I will give a short version.

    It is a state agency and they do not have the authority to ban carry (open or concealed) in their premises.

    ONLY the legislature can ban carry! State preemption.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Correct - only the legislature can ban (on a legal level) carry, but they can make a policy against it. At least this is what I get our of the email.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    You may have missed this, but here's an email explaining it. It's not horribly clear to me, but it's what I make out of it

    Aaron,

    The short answer is no—the preemption statute does not apply to state agencies. A state agency could not, however, criminalize the possession of firearms– the Legislature would have to do that. Although it’s not possible to predict how a court would view specific agency rules limiting firearms, there are certainly examples where agencies have done so. I am pasting a longer explanation from staff that provides some case history and examples that may be of interest to you.

    Sincerely,
    Rachel
    _________________________________________
    Rachel Smith
    Legislative Assistant to Rep. Dave Upthegrove
    Phone: (360) 786-7868
    Webpage: http://hdc.leg.wa.gov/members/upthegrove/index.asp
    Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000


    The preemption section, by its own terms, applies only to local jurisdictions. Under the state constitution, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt and enforce public safety and health laws unless in conflict with the general laws of the state. RCW 9.41.290 expresses the Legislature's intent to limit the authority of local jurisdictions to pass firearms laws. Although this preemption language is fairly broad, in two cases the Washington Supreme Court has upheld local firearms policies or regulations against a challenge that they were preempted by RCW 9.41.290. In the first case, Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794 (1991), the Court held that RCW 9.41.290 is not preemptive of the authority of a municipal employer to regulate or prohibit a municipal employee's possession of firearms while on the job or in the workplace. The Court determined that the Legislature, by adopting the preemption statute, intended to eliminate a multiplicity of local criminal laws relating to firearms and to advance uniformity in criminal firearms regulation, and that the "laws and ordinances" preempted are laws of application to the general public, not internal rules for employee conduct. In a more recent case, Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342 (2006), the Court upheld the authority of the city of Sequim to impose conditions on the sale of firearms at a gun show being held in the city's convention center. The conditions imposed by the city were a part of a permit for private use of its property, and were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.

    State agencies are generally given the authority to adopt rules to administer their programs. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has adopted a rule that generally prohibits the discharge of firearms in upland state park areas (WAC 352-32-120). Many universities and colleges have adopted rules prohibiting possession of firearms on campuses, and other state agencies have adopted rules prohibiting firearms in certain places (e.g., Office of Administrative Hearings facilities, facilities operated by the Washington State School for the Blind or School for the Deaf, grounds of horse racing associations, and licensed child care centers). I am not aware of any legal challenges to these rules. As to whether or not the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission could adopt a rule prohibiting possession of firearms on state parks, I do not know whether a challenge to the rule would be upheld.


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    I agree. The email appears to simply be their policy that they choose to enact. They can restrict carry if they choose to, but thankfully, most state agencies don't.
    Sorry, misread that last post of yours.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    I agree. The email appears to simply be their policy that they choose to enact. They can restrict carry if they choose to, but thankfully, most state agencies don't.
    Sorry, misread that last post of yours.
    State agencies make policy for their employees.

    They do not make them for customers and citizens.
    Live Free or Die!

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •