-
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.
-
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.
Library carry?
- Thread starter Contrarian
- Start date
deanf
Regular Member
The AG's Office has long said that they have no authority to correct preemption violations.
The King County Prosecutor has said that they won't prosecute for the criminal violations associated with a preemption violation because the issue is "not yet settled." They are referring to the issue of government making administrative rules keeping guns out, and if that is a preemption violation. Also they would need a case forwarded to them from law enforcement. And now that I think about it, the King County Prosecutor only handles felonies. I guess you could try the Seattle City Attorney . . .
No, you are on your own for any court ordered corrective action. You need to file a Writ of Mandamus.
Thanks for the heads up. Looks like we've got our work cut out for us.
jt59
Regular Member
AG
I think that I have learned that the AG's office only responds to requests from Agency, elected officials in local gov'ts and legislators.
Sending a request as a private entity would not be formally responded to.....
Anyway, my response to the head of the libraries...
Dear Ms. Hilldreth,
I am writing you regarding a response that was recieved by a friend of mine regarding Seattle library rules from Ms Addison, your communications director...the RCW that she is referencing "authorizes", it does not "require" and its context is in reference to access to resources (also allowing for fee setting for checking out resourses and such), not rule making on legal weapons.
Greetings from The Seattle Public Library. Thank you for your question about our Rules of Conduct. Under state law, the Library Board is required to enact such reasonable rules and regulations as the trustees find necessary to assure the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Because the Library is a sensitive place, like a school or government building, dedicated principally to reading and education, the Library has long had a policy that possession of firearms is incompatible with the Library's purpose. Sincerely,
Andra Addison
Communications Director
His question was regarding a violation of rule making (and policy) by the library trustee's regarding the legal carry of of firearms in Seattle Public Library's that is in violation of the state's pre-emption on restrictions of firearms.
"I was deeply disappointed to read tonight of a response you provided which places the Seattle Public Library in direct violation of the State of Washington’s RCW’s.
In your response, quoted above, you represent the library as a sensitive government place. That is factually incorrect per, RCW 9.41.300, which clearly spells out locations which are allowed to prohibit firearms. You will notice that in no such language, libraries are not mentioned. Since the library is not listed as a place where firearms are prohibited, the Seattle Public Library system is creating a “law” or policy which directly violates RCW 9.41.290. State preemption, as linked, allows lawful citizens the right to openly carry a firearm inside the public libraries in this state, without fear of being trespassed or harassed."
Ms Addison is making assumptions (on the status of the library being a "sensitive place, like a school or gov't building" on which she is obviously not qualified to make interpretations of the law, or worse, did not bother to read the citations provided: RCW 9.41.290.
She may also not be aware of the context of http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=27.12.321 in relation to her references that abolish rural school libraries and turn the assets over to your system. This reference clearly differentiates the public library system from "schools" that are subsequently referenced as "sensitive" in RCW 9.41.
The law makes specific exclusions to places that are "sensitive", like schools, courts and certain areas of a jail , but even then, goes so far as to make exceptions to those for dropping off and picking up students.....as well as areas of business' where minors under 21 are excluded (serving alcohol), but allows for carry in a bar that serves food as long as one stays in the service area.
The state code Ms Addison is quoting, is in context to the "Free use of the Library's".... http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=27.12.270 ...and authorizing rule making for the board. It does not authorize rule making by the board in violation of state law and potentially provides a serious liability for the Library and the Board of Trustee's.
Can you imagine, a person legally entitled to own and carry a sidearm (concealed or in "open carry") using one of your facilities. A staff person observes that the person is armed (and thinking they have the library "rule" behind their decision) makes a 911 call to Seattle police for a MWAG (man with a gun). The police, then respond inappropriately as was evidenced by the recent shooting of the native indian wood carver in Seattle....and a library employee puts many people at risk, in their response....
...and it turns out this happened because the Public library had in place an illegal rule and policy regarding firearms and further, trained it's employee's in its application?
The reason that this is important in the situation outlined above, is that there are over 300,000 people in WA that are already legally licensed to carry a weapon for personal protection under the state constitution....if you imagine, that people are not already carrying in the public library and doing this, your kidding yourself. Having a formal rule in place, that is illegal is creating a situation that is ripe for problems....and now that you are formally aware of this, inaction on resolution is inappropriate as a responsible manager to the system.
I am requesting that you remove this policy as the top person in charge, but if it is above your pay grade, then to bring this issue to the board of trustee's, have it reviewed for a legal standing and when found to be illegal, to remove it from your publications, internet sites and implement an HR training bulletin for your employee's to raise awareness.
Here is a link to the standing opionion issued by the State Attny' General, that is specific to this issue:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188
I would appreciate your response....
best regards,
I think that I have learned that the AG's office only responds to requests from Agency, elected officials in local gov'ts and legislators.
Sending a request as a private entity would not be formally responded to.....
Anyway, my response to the head of the libraries...
Dear Ms. Hilldreth,
I am writing you regarding a response that was recieved by a friend of mine regarding Seattle library rules from Ms Addison, your communications director...the RCW that she is referencing "authorizes", it does not "require" and its context is in reference to access to resources (also allowing for fee setting for checking out resourses and such), not rule making on legal weapons.
Greetings from The Seattle Public Library. Thank you for your question about our Rules of Conduct. Under state law, the Library Board is required to enact such reasonable rules and regulations as the trustees find necessary to assure the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Because the Library is a sensitive place, like a school or government building, dedicated principally to reading and education, the Library has long had a policy that possession of firearms is incompatible with the Library's purpose. Sincerely,
Andra Addison
Communications Director
His question was regarding a violation of rule making (and policy) by the library trustee's regarding the legal carry of of firearms in Seattle Public Library's that is in violation of the state's pre-emption on restrictions of firearms.
"I was deeply disappointed to read tonight of a response you provided which places the Seattle Public Library in direct violation of the State of Washington’s RCW’s.
In your response, quoted above, you represent the library as a sensitive government place. That is factually incorrect per, RCW 9.41.300, which clearly spells out locations which are allowed to prohibit firearms. You will notice that in no such language, libraries are not mentioned. Since the library is not listed as a place where firearms are prohibited, the Seattle Public Library system is creating a “law” or policy which directly violates RCW 9.41.290. State preemption, as linked, allows lawful citizens the right to openly carry a firearm inside the public libraries in this state, without fear of being trespassed or harassed."
Ms Addison is making assumptions (on the status of the library being a "sensitive place, like a school or gov't building" on which she is obviously not qualified to make interpretations of the law, or worse, did not bother to read the citations provided: RCW 9.41.290.
She may also not be aware of the context of http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=27.12.321 in relation to her references that abolish rural school libraries and turn the assets over to your system. This reference clearly differentiates the public library system from "schools" that are subsequently referenced as "sensitive" in RCW 9.41.
The law makes specific exclusions to places that are "sensitive", like schools, courts and certain areas of a jail , but even then, goes so far as to make exceptions to those for dropping off and picking up students.....as well as areas of business' where minors under 21 are excluded (serving alcohol), but allows for carry in a bar that serves food as long as one stays in the service area.
The state code Ms Addison is quoting, is in context to the "Free use of the Library's".... http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=27.12.270 ...and authorizing rule making for the board. It does not authorize rule making by the board in violation of state law and potentially provides a serious liability for the Library and the Board of Trustee's.
Can you imagine, a person legally entitled to own and carry a sidearm (concealed or in "open carry") using one of your facilities. A staff person observes that the person is armed (and thinking they have the library "rule" behind their decision) makes a 911 call to Seattle police for a MWAG (man with a gun). The police, then respond inappropriately as was evidenced by the recent shooting of the native indian wood carver in Seattle....and a library employee puts many people at risk, in their response....
...and it turns out this happened because the Public library had in place an illegal rule and policy regarding firearms and further, trained it's employee's in its application?
The reason that this is important in the situation outlined above, is that there are over 300,000 people in WA that are already legally licensed to carry a weapon for personal protection under the state constitution....if you imagine, that people are not already carrying in the public library and doing this, your kidding yourself. Having a formal rule in place, that is illegal is creating a situation that is ripe for problems....and now that you are formally aware of this, inaction on resolution is inappropriate as a responsible manager to the system.
I am requesting that you remove this policy as the top person in charge, but if it is above your pay grade, then to bring this issue to the board of trustee's, have it reviewed for a legal standing and when found to be illegal, to remove it from your publications, internet sites and implement an HR training bulletin for your employee's to raise awareness.
Here is a link to the standing opionion issued by the State Attny' General, that is specific to this issue:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188
I would appreciate your response....
best regards,
Last edited:
Beautiful, Jt59, just beautiful. *wipes tear from eye*
You guys are a plethra of knowledge. Your response was well written, concise and tamper-proof. Thank you for your support. Whomever gets a response back please post as soon as available to do so. Again, great job and thanks for your help.
You guys are a plethra of knowledge. Your response was well written, concise and tamper-proof. Thank you for your support. Whomever gets a response back please post as soon as available to do so. Again, great job and thanks for your help.
Lammo
Regular Member
I'm not sure that a writ of prohibition may not be the better course in these situations. My thought is that a mandate might only cover the party who brought the action where as prohibition should cover all of us. Review RCW 7.16 and tell me what you think.
PS - - the King County Prosecutor handles misdemeanors as well as felonies. County prosecutors handle all felonies within the county and misdemeanors that happen in the county, as opposed to those that happen within a city. Even then there are contracts between the counties and cities to handle misdemeanors. Basically, if there is an independent municipal court there is also likely an independent city prosecutor for misdemeanors. The Seattle City Attorney would be the prosecuting authority in a case involving the Seattle Public Library (unless the arresting officer is a WSP trooper or a King Co. Sheriff's Deputy - - all generalizations being false, don't you know).
jt59
Regular Member
Not yet.....strange as that may seem.
jt59
Regular Member
Cheesh....you just can't make this up! This is the foundation platform for discussions on interagency agreements between the WSP, County Sherriff's and city...and corresponding court jurisdictional oversight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
Stretch
Regular Member
No reply here either. Although, I didn't expect one from the library, they probably don't have my name in their database as a user of the SPL.
Tomas
Regular Member
I've had a library card since 1950, but never one at Seattle Public Libraries since I didn't live in Seattle.
HOWEVER I often made use of the main library in downtown Seattle to look up reference information during the quarter century I worked in Seattle.
One doesn't need to be in their "records" to be a user of their services.
HOWEVER I often made use of the main library in downtown Seattle to look up reference information during the quarter century I worked in Seattle.
One doesn't need to be in their "records" to be a user of their services.
Whitney
Regular Member
Writ of Mandamus
I'm a bit confused on the Writ of Mandamus. I understand that in this case a Judge could , by Writ of Mandamus, order the library to conform to current state law. What I do not understand is the execution of it.
Do I have to provide documentation that I have been aggrieved, and do I really need a lawyer to file a Writ of Mandamus, or can the Court Clerk do this? What is the possible fall out if the Writ is, a. thrown out of court, or b. ignored by the Library?
I can however see the value of having a lawyer seek other, less forceful avenues ensuring compliance. I can also see there is an individual associated cost. The cost of retaining a lawyer in these tough times precludes me and probably others from pursuing such endeavors.
Would a Lawyer here please give some guidance for further meaningful research, and/or shoot holes in all of this.
(pun intended)
-Whitney
I'm a bit confused on the Writ of Mandamus. I understand that in this case a Judge could , by Writ of Mandamus, order the library to conform to current state law. What I do not understand is the execution of it.
Do I have to provide documentation that I have been aggrieved, and do I really need a lawyer to file a Writ of Mandamus, or can the Court Clerk do this? What is the possible fall out if the Writ is, a. thrown out of court, or b. ignored by the Library?
I can however see the value of having a lawyer seek other, less forceful avenues ensuring compliance. I can also see there is an individual associated cost. The cost of retaining a lawyer in these tough times precludes me and probably others from pursuing such endeavors.
Would a Lawyer here please give some guidance for further meaningful research, and/or shoot holes in all of this.
(pun intended)
-Whitney
44Brent
Regular Member
Perhaps Lonnie or Dave W. can explain the relationship between the Seattle Public Library, and the Seattle Parks as it pertains to their lawsuit against Seattle Parks. I recall pointing out and arguing that the lawsuit against the City of Seattle was flawed because it was so narrowly drawn as to allow the city to continue it's illegal policies implemented by the Library.
They strongly defended the adequacy of the lawsuit and argued that the lawsuit did not need to be modified to encomnpass the library.
Well, now the problem wilth the library has reared its ugly head.
They strongly defended the adequacy of the lawsuit and argued that the lawsuit did not need to be modified to encomnpass the library.
Well, now the problem wilth the library has reared its ugly head.
DoomGoober
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 63
As an aside, King County Library seems to be in compliance:
"Any behavior that is prohibited by law or KCLS policy, including but not limited to:
• Unlawful possession of weapons"
Which implies that open carry or concealed carry with permit, without pointing or threatening seems to be OK.
"Any behavior that is prohibited by law or KCLS policy, including but not limited to:
• Unlawful possession of weapons"
Which implies that open carry or concealed carry with permit, without pointing or threatening seems to be OK.
Lammo
Regular Member
I don't care who you are that's funny right there.
Leatherneck
Regular Member
Just finished live chat asking if SPL is private or city property. It is indeed city property (knew that, but wanted to hear it from them).
My question about Section E rule has been forwarded to the proper person who can answer my question. I should hear back in about 2 days. (sounds familiar)
My question about Section E rule has been forwarded to the proper person who can answer my question. I should hear back in about 2 days. (sounds familiar)
jt59
Regular Member
I have received a response to my letter to the head librarian: I wish sometimes I could be this concise...
I think I need a library card...
Dear Mr. Thomas,
Thank you for your comments about the Library’s firearms policy. The Library Board has carefully considered all of the issues and determined that the policy is in the best interests of the Library, its patrons and employees.
Sincerely,
Susan Hildreth
City Librarian
From: john thomas [mailto:johnthomas49@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:03 AM
To: City Librarian
Subject: Seattle Public Library Rules regarding legally carried firearms
Dear Ms. Hilldreth,
I am writing you regarding a response that was recieved by a friend of mine regarding Seattle library rules from Ms Addison, your communications director...the RCW that she is referencing "authorizes", it does not "require" and its context is in reference to access to resources (also allowing for fee setting for checking out resourses and such), not rule making on legal weapons.
"Greetings from The Seattle Public Library. Thank you for your question about our Rules of Conduct. Under state law, the Library Board is required to enact such reasonable rules and regulations as the trustees find necessary to assure the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Because the Library is a sensitive place, like a school or government building, dedicated principally to reading and education, the Library has long had a policy that possession of firearms is incompatible with the Library's purpose. Sincerely,
Andra Addison
Communications Director"
His question was regarding a violation of rule making (and policy) by the library trustee's regarding the legal carry of of firearms in Seattle Public Library's that is in violation of the state's pre-emption on restrictions of firearms.
"I was deeply disappointed to read tonight of a response you provided which places the Seattle Public Library in direct violation of the State of Washington’s RCW’s.
In your response, quoted above, you represent the library as a sensitive government place. That is factually incorrect per, RCW 9.41.300, which clearly spells out locations which are allowed to prohibit firearms. You will notice that in no such language, libraries are not mentioned. Since the library is not listed as a place where firearms are prohibited, the Seattle Public Library system is creating a “law” or policy which directly violates RCW 9.41.290. State preemption, as linked, allows lawful citizens the right to openly carry a firearm inside the public libraries in this state, without fear of being trespassed or harassed."
Ms Addison is making assumptions (on the status of the library being a "sensitive place, like a school or gov't building" on which she is obviously not qualified to make interpretations of the law, or worse, did not bother to read the citations provided: RCW 9.41.290.
She may also not be aware of the context of http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=27.12.321 in relation to her references that abolish rural school libraries and turn the assets over to your system. This reference clearly differentiates the public library system from "schools" that are subsequently referenced as "sensitive" in RCW 9.41.
The law makes specific exclusions to places that are "sensitive", like schools, courts and certain areas of a jail , but even then, goes so far as to make exceptions to those for dropping off and picking up students.....as well as areas of business' where minors under 21 are excluded (serving alcohol), but allows for carry in a bar that serves food as long as one stays in the service area.
The state code Ms Addison is quoting, is in context to the "Free use of the Library's".... http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=27.12.270 ...and authorizing rule making for the board. It does not authorize rule making by the board in violation of state law and potentially provides a serious liability for the Library and the Board of Trustee's.
Can you imagine, a person legally entitled to own and carry a sidearm (concealed or in "open carry") using one of your facilities. A staff person observes that the person is armed (and thinking they have the library "rule" behind their decision) makes a 911 call to Seattle police for a MWAG (man with a gun). The police, then respond inappropriately as was evidenced by the recent shooting of the native indian wood carver in Seattle....and a library employee puts many people at risk, in their response....
...and it turns out this happened because the Public library had in place an illegal rule and policy regarding firearms and further, trained it's employee's in its application?
The reason that this is important in the situation outlined above, is that there are over 300,000 people in WA that are already legally licensed to carry a weapon for personal protection under the state constitution....if you imagine, that people are not already carrying in the public library and doing this, your kidding yourself. Having a formal rule in place, that is illegal is creating a situation that is ripe for problems....and now that you are formally aware of this, inaction on resolution is inappropriate as a responsible manager to the system.
I am requesting that you remove this policy as the top person in charge, but if it is above your pay grade, then to bring this issue to the board of trustee's, have it reviewed for a legal standing and when found to be illegal, to remove it from your publications, internet sites and implement an HR training bulletin for your employee's to raise awareness.
Here is a link to the standing opionion issued by the State Attny' General, that is specific to this issue:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188
I would appreciate your response....
best regards,
JT
Last edited: