WorkSource Center no weapons policy

joeroket said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

BigDave said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

joeroket said:

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.

Click to expand...

How do you challenge it, otherwise? Mail a complaint? That's not meant to be a smart alec response, but a genuine question.

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.

PLEASE stop this, no where did the SCOTUS in Mcdonald or Heller say the 2nd Amendment only applied inside the home. Alito said it was most acute in the home see below.

alito dicta
"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.
Explaining that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred_*

joeroket said:

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.

Click to expand...

How does a rule supersede state law is my question, if it is not prohibited by state law then it is legal, yes?

BigDave said:

How does a rule supersede state law is my question, if it is not prohibited by state law then it is legal, yes?

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say a rule superseded a statute. You are correct in the sense that there is no criminal penalty for carrying in a worksource, however, as I said above, trespassing is.

Just because an activity is not prohibited by a statute does not mean it is allowed as it may in fact be prohibited by rule.

Orphan said:

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.

PLEASE stop this, no where did the SCOTUS in Mcdonald or Heller say the 2nd Amendment only applied inside the home. Alito said it was most acute in the home see below.

alito dicta
"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.
Explaining that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred_*

Click to expand...

Orphan you are correct. I will concede this.

joeroket said:

Nowhere did I say a rule superseded a statute. You are correct in the sense that there is no criminal penalty for carrying in a worksource, however, as I said above, trespassing is.

Just because an activity is not prohibited by a statute does not mean it is allowed as it may in fact be prohibited by rule.

Click to expand...

It will likely take someone with money to toss into legal fees and file suit as was done in the Seattle Parks case.

Could you imagine how short these threads would be if the law was cut and dry, and we had an attorney to answer these questions with a definite answer. But then if we had that, we would have to find other things to do beside bickering back and forth how we think the law reads.

cut and dry, definite answers... Oh what a blessing that would be.

IANAL

amzbrady said:

Could you imagine how short these threads would be if the law was cut and dry, and we had an attorney to answer these questions with a definite answer.
IANAL

Click to expand...

The Attorney General opinion from Oct. 13th 2008 dealing with the preemption of firearms in
Washington State: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=28

M1Gunr said:

The Attorney General opinion from Oct. 13th 2008 dealing with the preemption of firearms in
Washington State: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=28

Click to expand...

No doubt this is in strong support of our position but the Attorney General will not step in and correct it, so we still end up with someone being the test case.

It is upsetting that people that work for us have to be made to do their job and abide by the laws.

M1Gunr said:

The Attorney General opinion from Oct. 13th 2008 dealing with the preemption of firearms in
Washington State: http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=28

Click to expand...

When I read this I come to the conclusion that it is a state law and applies to the whole state, not that state departments can make their own rules. It would seem that they would have to make an amendment to the RCW to add more restrictive places.

Yes Pre-emption doesn't apply to the state but their own law would. But of course I am definitely not a lawyer.

Now would this include HOA's (homeowner asscociation) since the State declares all gun laws within their boundaries, and all "ordinances" are pre-empted. My HOA has just recently changed their laws, because of me....

BigDave said:

It will likely take someone with money to toss into legal fees and file suit as was done in the Seattle Parks case.

Click to expand...

And unfortunately they know it.

This seems like it would be a bit harder than the Seattle parks case though because it is a state agency and it plainly states who shall not create more restrictive laws and state agencies do not fall into any of the categories.

Drew, do you have an opinion you are willing to throw in to this discussion.

joeroket said:

And unfortunately they know it.

This seems like it would be a bit harder than the Seattle parks case though because it is a state agency and it plainly states who shall not create more restrictive laws and state agencies do not fall into any of the categories.

Drew, do you have an opinion you are willing to throw in to this discussion.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, but it specifically tells where they are prohibited in the state?

Which would lead me to believe that without legislative, change state agencies would have to follow the law as written.

Of course the state probably agrees with your view point.....:lol:

So many of us have been to DOL and those that have had issues have pointed out preemption and the issue resolved. If Worksource is state run like DOL why is this still an issue?

My appointment is Monday at the WS center off 38th in Tacoma. We'll see what they say.

IT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL TO KNOW EXACTLY WHICH CENTER THIS ISSUE TOOK PLACE IN TO GET IT RESOLVED.

If Worksource is state run like DOL why is this still an issue?

Click to expand...

Because Worksource is smart enough to know they are not covered by preemption, and DOL is not? Maybe?

Of course that doesn't make it right. It's still a constitutional issue, which is the ultimate preemption . . . .

sudden valley gunner said:

That's a good point, but it specifically tells where they are prohibited in the state?

Which would lead me to believe that without legislative, change state agencies would have to follow the law as written.

Of course the state probably agrees with your view point.....:lol:

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I am sure they do agree with it. Which is why we must try to get the pre-emption law changed to included rules by state agencies.

The problem, I think, lies in the fact that there is one set of laws that state off limit areas for firearms and there is another set of laws that grant the heads of agencies to promulgate rules, and included is usually specific language that rules creating a safe and non-hostile environment are allowed.

deanf said:

Because Worksource is smart enough to know they are not covered by preemption, and DOL is not? Maybe?

Click to expand...

Or the head of DOL respects the right to self defense and the head of WorkSource does not.

Either way it is irritating and needs to be changed.