Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76

Thread: WorkSource Center no weapons policy

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    9

    Thumbs down WorkSource Center no weapons policy

    I have something useful to convey that may affect people who OC.

    Within the last 2 months I attended a Employment Security Department seminar on workplace safety at a state WorkSource Center. No, I won't say which one. Not that it matters since this training is being conducted at all WorkSource Centers in WA. The topic came up regarding the no weapons policy that's written on a warning notice on all external doors. Some guy at the meeting asked the instructor about open carry and how that affects the WorkSource Center. The instructor replied that they won't allow any guns, period. He made it clear by his response that this is just the way it is and that the inquiry was over.

    The worker persisted in his questioning and what happened next may be of interest to you. I wrote down the instructors response as best I could.

    The worker tried to point out that according to the article he read, the restrictions on OC only applies to a jail & ... : that's when the instructor cut him off. He said the policy is this, no matter what the Employment Security Department won't allow guns OC or CC on the premises. He said that TPTB know it may not be legal but will take the chance of getting sued rather than allow guns in their buildings. His comment made it clear that they don't care about following the law. The instructor then said that no one inside of a WorkSouce building can ever tolerate any weapon. He then gave the example of what we should do if someone walked in with a gun showing (or CC); call the police on sight. This is official policy.

    In the booklet we were given there was this:

    RCW 9.41.270
    Prohibited: weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm - unlawful carrying or handling - penalty - exceptions.

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests in intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    This is all I have to share.

  2. #2
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Is Worksource a federal building?
    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
    Worksource is part of the Washington State department of Employment Securities.
    "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
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    My appointment tomorrow should go well then.......

  5. #5
    Regular Member Leatherneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Des Moines, Washington, USA
    Posts
    281
    Time for an OC meet at the WorkSource Center.
    (HAHAHA!)

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I went briefly in and quickly out to drop off some paperwork last year. I do have to go back again and had already planned on OC.

  7. #7
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    Makes you wonder if they have twisted in their minds the fact that you are a "state employee" if you are collecting un-enjoyment checks??? So, if you are a "state employee" then that departments firearm policy would apply to you??

    It's not right, but sometimes people think like that...

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Someone should go in wearing these:



    http://www.pimall.com/nais/sunglasscam-nais.html

    These also transmit the video wirelessly so another person could be carrying the DVR. Hard to confiscate and destroy "evidence" of a State Employee stating emphatically that "They don't care what the law says".

    Hey, if the big News Networks can do this, why not someone who is being denied his rights?
    "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?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    So are they pre-empted? After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.
    Exactly. The argument is a constitutional one.

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    So are they pre-empted? After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.
    How does one come to the conclusion that preemption does not apply to State Agencies? Please educate me on this concept.

    In the face of our Constitution of Washington State and our State Legislatures are the basis for our laws not a State Agency to violate them as from what I see State Agencies do not have the powers to create law, nor to pick and choose which ones they follow.

    The U.S. Constitution and Washington State Constitution apply to the State Agencies as well as our local governments.
    I see preemption applying to all with in the borders of Washington.

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    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.

    [1994 sp.s. c 7 428; 1985 c 428 1; 1983 c 232 12.]
    I looked into this some time ago and let it drop do to other ventures in the City and County of Yakima in repealing ordinance to come into compliance with State Law.

    The last at hand issue they were stating;

    Quote Originally Posted by email from John Nacht, ARM
    Good afternoon Mr. XXXXXXXXX,

    Your inquiry regarding the sign on the WorkSource Yakima office that says, “Notice, No Weapons Allowed. The possession of any and all dangerous weapons is prohibited on these premises” has been referred to me. The policy of prohibiting weapons in our offices exists to protect the public, as well as our staff who provide services to the public at offices throughout the state. The prohibition was put into effect after consideration of the authorities provided the Commissioner of the Employment Security Department in Title 50 RCW to administer the statute; 9.41RCW pertaining to weapons; and 9A.76 RCW that ensures state employees are free from intimidation when performing their duties.

    I hope the explanation above provides you ample information in response to your inquiry.

    John Nacht, ARM
    Risk Management Program Administrator
    Employment Security Department
    360-438-3140
    They are misreading the law but if someone wants to pick it up from here, go for it, there is his contact info.
    Last edited by BigDave; 10-15-2010 at 04:28 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    How does one come to the conclusion that preemption does not apply to State Agencies? Please educate me on this concept.

    In the face of our Constitution of Washington State and our State Legislatures are the basis for our laws not a State Agency to violate them as from what I see State Agencies do not have the powers to create law, nor to pick and choose which ones they follow.

    The U.S. Constitution and Washington State Constitution apply to the State Agencies as well as our local governments.
    I see preemption applying to all with in the borders of Washington.






    I looked into this some time ago and let it drop do to other ventures in the City and County of Yakima in repealing ordinance to come into compliance with State Law.

    The last at hand issue they were stating;



    They are misreading the law but if someone wants to pick it up from here, go for it, there is his contact info.
    They just dont want to have to be afraid of people that come in trying to keep their life straight and to get the unemployment they are entitled to. If everyone is unarmed, they can feel better about being *******'s, and sitting around in their 3 to 4 person circles joking and laughing while you have been waiting an hour to see someone. It also allows them to be condescending to you and to be able to say "I dont understand why your not working, there are so many jobs posted, Have you applied for any of them", all while looking down their nose at you knowing they have a better job with great benies. I would love to be a state employee, it looks like as long as you show up for your 8 hour shift and work at least 3 hours of it, your golden.
    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

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post

    They are misreading the law but if someone wants to pick it up from here, go for it, there is his contact info.
    If the Legislature wanted the Dept Commissioner to be able to prohibit firearms they have included Work Source Facilities in 9.41.300, don't you think?

    Funny how once part of Government you "Think" differently about the laws that govern us mere mortals.

    Another thought, if State Employees were doing their job properly, what would they have to fear from their clients?
    "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?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    How does one come to the conclusion that preemption does not apply to State Agencies? Please educate me on this concept.

    I see preemption applying to all with in the borders of Washington.
    Where do you read that at? The pre-emption statute Says that the State of Washington occupies the firearm field and that no city, county, town, or other municipality shall pass a law or ordinance that is stricter than state law.

    No where in the wording does it apply pre-emption to a state entity.

    Like Dean said, this is a constitutional issue and since no court that I know of has extended the 2nd to outside a persons home I do not see a win unless you have the funds or backing to fight it.

    Since you seem so sure of yourself Dave why do you not go OC into the worksource in Yakima?
    "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

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    Where do you read that at? The pre-emption statute Says that the State of Washington occupies the firearm field and that no city, county, town, or other municipality shall pass a law or ordinance that is stricter than state law.
    It also specifies in the RCW where and where we can not carry a firearm. Where is the authority for each branch of government to write a rule that contradicts what the legislature has decided?

    Also, on a related topic,

    RCW 34.05.655
    Petition for review.


    (1) Any person may petition the rules review committee for a review of a proposed or existing rule or a proposed or existing policy or interpretive statement, guideline, or document that is of general applicability, or its equivalent. A petition to review a statement, guideline, or document that is of general applicability, or its equivalent, may only be filed for the purpose of requesting the committee to determine whether the statement, guideline, or document that is of general applicability, or its equivalent, is being used as a rule that has not been adopted in accordance with all provisions of law. Within thirty days of the receipt of the petition, the rules review committee shall acknowledge receipt of the petition and describe any initial action taken. If the rules review committee rejects the petition, a written statement of the reasons for rejection shall be included.

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    Where do you read that at? The pre-emption statute Says that the State of Washington occupies the firearm field and that no city, county, town, or other municipality shall pass a law or ordinance that is stricter than state law.

    No where in the wording does it apply pre-emption to a state entity.

    Like Dean said, this is a constitutional issue and since no court that I know of has extended the 2nd to outside a persons home I do not see a win unless you have the funds or backing to fight it.

    Since you seem so sure of yourself Dave why do you not go OC into the worksource in Yakima?
    The legislature has spelled out pretty clear what is off limits and what is not, have you not read RCW 9.41.300

    As to outside the home have you not read either the Washington State Constitution Article 1 Section 24 "shall not be infringed" or realize our State Constitution makes it a right to bear arms and does not limit it to the home.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    So are they pre-empted? After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.
    The state cannot preempt itself, however, only the legislature can criminalize firearm possession. Look at it on a city level. Imagine if there were no State Preemption. Now take, say, the city of Des Moines, for example. Imagine the city council has created an ordinance that specifically states that firearms are not to be possessed in court chambers of the municipal court, and the restricted access areas of the police department. Now, imagine going to the Des Moines Field House, and being told to leave, because they do not allow firearms in the building, even though it's city owned property. That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
    Last edited by Aaron1124; 10-15-2010 at 06:15 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    If the Legislature wanted the Dept Commissioner to be able to prohibit firearms they have included Work Source Facilities in 9.41.300, don't you think?
    If the legislature wanted to prohibit firearms from an outdoor music festival you think they would have put it into 9.41.300, don't you?

    They don't always put stuff under the correct title and they give the heads of agencies the ability to create rules as they see fit providing they fit into certain guidelines. One of those guidelines is to create a safe and non-hostile environment for their patrons and workers.

    Don't get me wrong because I do not agree with these rules as they do, I feel, violate our state constitution.
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    The state cannot preempt itself, however, only the legislature can criminalize firearm possession.
    Your right but trespassing is criminal.
    Last edited by joeroket; 10-15-2010 at 06:15 PM.
    "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

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    The legislature has spelled out pretty clear what is off limits and what is not, have you not read RCW 9.41.300

    As to outside the home have you not read either the Washington State Constitution Article 1 Section 24 "shall not be infringed" or realize our State Constitution makes it a right to bear arms and does not limit it to the home.
    Uh...you don't seriously think that those are the only places that you cannot carry a firearm do you?

    And court cases agree with your interpretation of Art. 1 Sec 24?
    "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

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    Uh...you don't seriously think that those are the only places that you cannot carry a firearm do you?

    And court cases agree with your interpretation of Art. 1 Sec 24?
    1. Of course there a couple of RCW that is right a law specific to that subject, the ones cited by the State Agency has to do with running the department staff not the public.

    2. It is constitutional until ruled it is not in the courts, and one would not have a court case supporting something that has not been challenged and I doubt if it ever will be.

    Come on joeroket where do you see the law gives this agency to prohibit a right?
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    An old email from the Legislature. Seems a little vague, so take it as you will.

    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.

  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Just a short recap;

    • Cherry v Metro had to do with Employer Employee relationship not to the public.
    • Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim had to do with contractual agreement again not the public.


    WAC 352-32-120
    Agency filings affecting this section
    Firearms.
    (1) No person shall discharge or propel across, in, or into any upland state park area as defined in WAC 352-32-010 ("Upland" shall mean all lands lying above mean high water.) a firearm, except where the commission for good cause has authorized a special recreational activity upon finding that it is not inconsistent with state park use. Any violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

    (2) The possession, display, carrying, discharge or use of a firearm is further regulated under chapter 9.41 RCW.

    Restricting the discharge of firearms in these areas seemed to be reserved for cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    RCW 9.41.300

    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
    I believe that all these areas restricting firearms in Colleges and State Departments are unconstitutional and would hopefully fall if challenged, will it? we will have to wait and see if someone would take it that far.

    Aaron1124 very well written.
    Last edited by BigDave; 10-15-2010 at 08:36 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    1. Of course there a couple of RCW that is right a law specific to that subject, the ones cited by the State Agency has to do with running the department staff not the public.

    2. It is constitutional until ruled it is not in the courts, and one would not have a court case supporting something that has not been challenged and I doubt if it ever will be.

    Come on joeroket where do you see the law gives this agency to prohibit a right?
    RCW 50 gives them the authority to promulgate rules. Do you see a law that restricts them from creating a rule that prohibits firearms?

    Like you said it is assumed constitutional until challenged in court. Do you see a law

    Remember Dave, we are on the same side and I do not like these rules either, however running in and OC'ing at a state agency, like some have said to do, is not the correct answer.
    "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

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    RCW 50 gives them the authority to promulgate rules. Do you see a law that restricts them from creating a rule that prohibits firearms?

    Like you said it is assumed constitutional until challenged in court. Do you see a law

    Remember Dave, we are on the same side and I do not like these rules either, however running in and OC'ing at a state agency, like some have said to do, is not the correct answer.
    How do you challenge it, otherwise? Mail a complaint? That's not meant to be a smart alec response, but a genuine question.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •