• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

We would prefer you not carry a firearm

o2ryan

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
415
Location
Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
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 :?
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
 

o2ryan

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
415
Location
Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.
 

Son_of_Perdition

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
166
Location
SW , Washington, USA
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.
 

SpyderTattoo

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,015
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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?
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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?action=downloads;sa=view;id=49


[align=left]from
Hill, Earl R <EH@liq.wa.gov>[/align]

[align=left]To m1gunr@gmail.com[/align]

[align=left]Cc[/align]

[align=left]"McKim, Bea M" <BMK@liq.wa.gov>,[/align]

[align=left]"Hilt, Sandy L" <SH@liq.wa.gov>,[/align]

[align=left]"O'Donnell, Charles J" <COD@liq.wa.gov>[/align]

[align=left]Date Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM[/align]

[align=left]Subject RCW 9.41.300 & Liquor stores[/align]


[align=left]Hello Mr. Starks,[/align]

[align=left]My name is Earl Hill and I’m a District Manager for the Liquor Control Board[/align]

[align=left]covering the Tacoma area.[/align]

[align=left]I’m responding to your concern regarding a recent shopping experience at our[/align]

[align=left]retail store # 122 at 72
nd and Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. I have reviewed the[/align]

[align=left]incident as described and it appears that while you were shopping, a customer[/align]

[align=left]initially noticed your firearm and commented that you were not allowed to have[/align]

[align=left]one in the store. Our store employees overheard this and supported that you[/align]

[align=left]were not allowed to carry while the store. Upon reviewing the signs posted in the[/align]

[align=left]store; I have determined that the signs were meant to be advisory for our staff[/align]

[align=left]and not for our retail customers. Our store employees were misinformed about[/align]

[align=left]the intent of the sign and I have authorized their removal.[/align]

[align=left]Let me apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We value[/align]

[align=left]customer feedback and I appreciate you letting me know about this incident. Let[/align]

[align=left]me know if you wish to discuss further by calling or emailing me at your[/align]

[align=left]convenience.[/align]

[align=left]Thank you[/align]


[align=left]Earl Hill
, District Manager Office: 253/471-5338 Cell: 253/370-2250[/align]

[align=left]Roberson Bldg Ste 208 Fax: 360/704-5021
EH@LIQ.WA.GOV[/align]

[align=left]6240 Tacoma Mall Blvd[/align]
Tacoma WA 98409-6819
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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?action=downloads;sa=view;id=49


[align=left]from Hill, Earl R <EH@liq.wa.gov>[/align]

[align=left]To m1gunr@gmail.com[/align]

[align=left]Cc[/align]

[align=left]"McKim, Bea M" <BMK@liq.wa.gov>,[/align]

[align=left]"Hilt, Sandy L" <SH@liq.wa.gov>,[/align]

[align=left]"O'Donnell, Charles J" <COD@liq.wa.gov>[/align]

[align=left]Date Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM[/align]

[align=left]Subject RCW 9.41.300 & Liquor stores[/align]

[align=left]Hello Mr. Starks,[/align]

[align=left]My name is Earl Hill and I’m a District Manager for the Liquor Control Board[/align]

[align=left]covering the Tacoma area.[/align]

[align=left]I’m responding to your concern regarding a recent shopping experience at our[/align]

[align=left]retail store # 122 at 72nd and Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. I have reviewed the[/align]

[align=left]incident as described and it appears that while you were shopping, a customer[/align]

[align=left]initially noticed your firearm and commented that you were not allowed to have[/align]

[align=left]one in the store. Our store employees overheard this and supported that you[/align]

[align=left]were not allowed to carry while the store. Upon reviewing the signs posted in the[/align]

[align=left]store; I have determined that the signs were meant to be advisory for our staff[/align]

[align=left]and not for our retail customers. Our store employees were misinformed about[/align]

[align=left]the intent of the sign and I have authorized their removal.[/align]

[align=left]Let me apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We value[/align]

[align=left]customer feedback and I appreciate you letting me know about this incident. Let[/align]

[align=left]me know if you wish to discuss further by calling or emailing me at your[/align]

[align=left]convenience.[/align]

[align=left]Thank you[/align]

[align=left]Earl Hill, District Manager Office: 253/471-5338 Cell: 253/370-2250[/align]

[align=left]Roberson Bldg Ste 208 Fax: 360/704-5021 EH@LIQ.WA.GOV[/align]

[align=left]6240 Tacoma Mall Blvd[/align]
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

o2ryan

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
415
Location
Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
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
 
Top