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.

Is Worksource a federal building?

Worksource is part of the Washington State department of Employment Securities.

My appointment tomorrow should go well then.......

Time for an OC meet at the WorkSource Center.
(HAHAHA!)

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.

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...

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?

So are they pre-empted? After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.

After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The argument is a constitutional one.

joeroket said:

So are they pre-empted? After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.]

Click to expand...

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;

email from John Nacht said:

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

Click to expand...

They are misreading the law but if someone wants to pick it up from here, go for it, there is his contact info.

BigDave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 jackass'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.

BigDave said:

They are misreading the law but if someone wants to pick it up from here, go for it, there is his contact info.

Click to expand...

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?

BigDave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

joeroket said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

joeroket said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

joeroket said:

So are they pre-empted? After all they are a state agency and pre-emption does not apply at that level.

Click to expand...

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?

amlevin said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Aaron1124 said:

The state cannot preempt itself, however, only the legislature can criminalize firearm possession.

Click to expand...

Your right but trespassing is criminal.

BigDave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?