Asked to leave my firearm in the car at Navos Mental Health Solutions

As some of you may know, my brother in law has mental disorders. I frequently work with his case workers to help him. Just yesterday, I visited the "Navos Mental Health Solutions" campus in Burien, to drop off his S.S.I. check.

I was walking down the outside path, when a gentleman asked me:

"Sir, is that a weapon?"

Me: "Yes, it is."

Man - "Oh, I think you have to leave it in the car. If I remember right, this property is a weapons free zone, but I'll call for security to double check."

*Security shows up moments later*

Security officer introduced himself as "Pete"

Pete : "Yeah.. unfortunately, this property is a weapons free zone.. so do ya think you might be able to leave it in the car?"

Me: "Yeah, that's not a problem. But by chance, do you know if this is a publicly funded organization operated through a government agency?"

Pete: "I think it's privately funded by a non profit organization, but couldn't tell ya for sure. I just work security. *Laughs*"

Me: "Ohh ok. No problem. I can put it in the car.. but all I need to do is drop this check off."

Then we proceeded back to the front, and he was talking to me about my firearm. He was telling me that if it were up to him, he would gladly let me have it there. He said the place is "very far left" and he proceeded to thank me for supporting 2nd Amendment rights. He told me it "takes a lot of courage" to carry a firearm openly, and he applauded me for doing so. We had a nice conversation about it for about 10 minutes before I finally put my firearm back in the car. I told him I understood how he can't risk his job, so I had no problem complying.


He insisted that I do more research on the organization to ensure the policy is not in violation. He admitted he was just "doing as told."

Here's a link to their website.

What do you say? Does it appear to be private property?

http://www.navos.org/

Your best bet in a situation like this is to do a search on the Washington Secretary of State's website. Navos is a non-profit corporation according to the SecState.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_...ria=all&name_type=starts_with&name=navos&ubi=

Hey Aaron,

Navos is a CMHC (Community Mental Health Center). As such, it is a privately operated, "non-profit" organization that in all likelihood receives a majority of its funding through state and federally funded grants and/or contracts. Most of their clients are probably on some form of medical assistance from the state. They are essentially a government contractor, though I'm sure they'd never describe themselves that way.

As far as RKBA goes, its private property. Their property, their rules. Theoretically, if they lease their office space you may be able to receive permission to carry from the landlord. On the other hand, it may be that they're able to set their own rules in the space the occupy. You'd have to speak with someone more knowledgeable about property law than I am.

It's also worth pointing out that even if Navos permitted you to carry, by law you would not be able to carry into certain areas of mental health facilities. See this excerpt from RCW 9.41.300 listing off limits places for carry:

(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public.

Hope it helps.

cbpeck said:

Theoretically, if they lease their office space you may be able to receive permission to carry from the landlord. On the other hand, it may be that they're able to set their own rules in the space the occupy.

Click to expand...

When someone leases a piece of property it is THEIRS until the end of the lease period, as long as they continue to fulfill the terms of the lease. That means pay rent, taxes, and maintain as per terms of the lease.

Unless the landlord had specifically written into the terms of the lease that the tenant could not restrict firearms from the premises then they are absolutely within their rights to do so.

Would be interesting if there is a clause in their lease requiring the lessee to follow all State and Federal laws. That might leave some room for interpretation but usually, a leasehold is treated as if it is the private property lessee for the term of the lease.

By your theory, you could build a building, lease it to the Post Office, and grant everyone permission to carry. How far do you think THAT would fly? About the same distance as in this case.

amlevin said:

When someone leases a piece of property it is THEIRS until the end of the lease period, as long as they continue to fulfill the terms of the lease. That means pay rent, taxes, and maintain as per terms of the lease.

Unless the landlord had specifically written into the terms of the lease that the tenant could not restrict firearms from the premises then they are absolutely within their rights to do so.

Would be interesting if there is a clause in their lease requiring the lessee to follow all State and Federal laws. That might leave some room for interpretation but usually, a leasehold is treated as if it is the private property lessee for the term of the lease.

By your theory, you could build a building, lease it to the Post Office, and grant everyone permission to carry. How far do you think THAT would fly? About the same distance as in this case.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. Like I said, the OP should "speak with someone more knowledgeable about property law than I am."

cbpeck said:

Hey Aaron,

Navos is a CMHC (Community Mental Health Center). As such, it is a privately operated, "non-profit" organization that in all likelihood receives a majority of its funding through state and federally funded grants and/or contracts. Most of their clients are probably on some form of medical assistance from the state. They are essentially a government contractor, though I'm sure they'd never describe themselves that way.

As far as RKBA goes, its private property. Their property, their rules. Theoretically, if they lease their office space you may be able to receive permission to carry from the landlord. On the other hand, it may be that they're able to set their own rules in the space the occupy. You'd have to speak with someone more knowledgeable about property law than I am.

It's also worth pointing out that even if Navos permitted you to carry, by law you would not be able to carry into certain areas of mental health facilities. See this excerpt from RCW 9.41.300 listing off limits places for carry:

(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public.

Hope it helps.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. That makes sense. By law, I can carry there, because they do not have any restricted access areas for the mentally ill, nor do they take care of the mentally ill at this location. The security guy told me just to go ahead and conceal if I have to come back. He was a great guy.

cbpeck said:

Hey Aaron,
...
It's also worth pointing out that even if Navos permitted you to carry, by law you would not be able to carry into certain areas of mental health facilities. See this excerpt from RCW 9.41.300 listing off limits places for carry:

(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public.

Hope it helps.

Click to expand...

It appears that 9.41.300 would not apply, since they are a private organization, not a public mental health facility or a state institution.

ak56 said:

It appears that 9.41.300 would not apply, since they are a private organization, not a public mental health facility or a state institution.

Click to expand...

The phrase "public mental health facility" in 9.41.300 is difficult to interpret. I believe all state owned/operated centers would be considered "state institutions," so I've always understood "public mental health facility" to be synonymous with community mental health centers (CMHCs) that provide services to the public. CMHC is a commonly used label in the field of mental health.

Part of my logic stems from the rest of the sentence: "...certified by the department of social and health services...." DSHS certifies CMHCs to provide treatment to the general public, often through medicaid contracts. I don't see why/how they'd certify a center that was operated by the state. If "public mental health facility" does not mean CMHC, then I don't have a clue what it means. And I work in the field!

I'm about 90% certain that my interpretation is correct. It sure would've been nice if whoever wrote this law had been more clear.

Oh yea, IANAL.

If were public and government operated, it would only include restricted areas. To my knowledge, they don't house patients at Navos.

Aaron1124 said:

If were public and government operated, it would only include restricted areas. To my knowledge, they don't house patients at Navos.

Click to expand...

Aaron, it sure sounds like you're free of any legal problem while visiting Navos. They'd have to have a restricted area identified for inpatient use, and then you'd have to enter it while carrying in order for you to be in violation of the RCW.

That being said, I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a public mental health facility. Typically "public" describes an office that is owned & operated by the government. In this context I believe that it describes a Community Mental Health Center that serves the public. I'm about 90% sure that my interpretation is correct, but I'd really like to be 100% sure.

cbpeck said:

Aaron, it sure sounds like you're free of any legal problem while visiting Navos. They'd have to have a restricted area identified for inpatient use, and then you'd have to enter it while carrying in order for you to be in violation of the RCW.

That being said, I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a public mental health facility. Typically "public" describes an office that is owned & operated by the government. In this context I believe that it describes a Community Mental Health Center that serves the public. I'm about 90% sure that my interpretation is correct, but I'd really like to be 100% sure.

Click to expand...

I would agree that a "Public mental health facility" would be a facility operated by some level of government; similar to how a jail is operated by a level of government. The security officer and other staff member both told me that it's a "private, non profit organization" meaning they aren't run by the government, and they have their own CEO/President.

Clarity

Aaron1124 said:

If were public and government operated, it would only include restricted areas. To my knowledge, they don't house patients at Navos.

Click to expand...

To clear this up, Navos does house involuntary and voluntary patients at the Burien location. Having spent an excessive and unpleasant time there I can also clarify that is in no way 'left-leaning' and relies solely on heavy pharmaceutical cocktails to drug and sedate it's 'patients' into compliance, all while talking **** and gossiping about the residents while working. Also strapping people down, force medicating them, and generally being a modern day One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest minus the lobotomy. A gun in such a place would in no way be a good thing, as I can attest to my rather homicidal/suicidal urges while hopped up on whatever pill of the day they felt like pushing. These evaporated upon release with no diagnosis or further prescription. I was placed there by abusive roommates who stole my things and took my money for 'rent' while I was not living in the house. In case you were to question my mental capacity due to my being in such a place.

cbpeck said:

It's also worth pointing out that even if Navos permitted you to carry, by law you would not be able to carry into certain areas of mental health facilities.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the sorts of people who live in those secured areas can't cash checks...and I've never seen the front reception desk located inside of the secure ward of ANY hospital.

amlevin said:

When someone leases a piece of property it is THEIRS until the end of the lease period, as long as they continue to fulfill the terms of the lease. That means pay rent, taxes, and maintain as per terms of the lease.

Click to expand...

That right there is the main reason why the City of Seattle prefers use licenses rather than leases when people want to hold a trade show in a stadium or convention center. If the city did lease them, the city would lose a LOT of its ability to dictate how they are used.

Aaron1124 said:

By law, I can carry there, because they do not have any restricted access areas for the mentally ill

Click to expand...

It might not automatically be a crime to carry there, but be aware that trespassing IS a crime, and if they dislike you carrying on their property, not leaving when asked IS a criminal act. Being told "If you want to come in, leave the gun in the car" is legally binding on you if an employee of the company (such as a security guard) tells you that.

FoxClover said:

I was placed there by abusive roommates who stole my things and took my money for 'rent' while I was not living in the house.

Click to expand...

Eek, suddenly my own bad experience with abusive roommates doesn't seem to be quite as bad as it used to...though I am curious how a roommate would have the legal authority to have someone involuntarily committed. How did they manage it?

People who deliberately lie in order to get someone else in trouble can actually lie so that a victim becomes "held" temporarily by saying the person is a danger to themselves or others, especially if the victim is GUILELESS and doesn't see this coming, so doesn't take precautions (like vanishing for a while...)

The Navos security guy is a liberal. He works hard, with a prosthetic. The hourly staff seem to care about individuals. But, professional staff have some questionable values. For instance, my niece went in for help with anxiety. The screener completely misunderstood her (and the friend she brought), did not take notes when the laptop broke, and did not care about my niece's concerns. I guess the screener gave up active listening a long time ago. Instead of getting my niece help for anxiety, she gave a provisional diagnosis as psychotic, with delusions. Which my niece is not. They didn't want to release the screening records, either. It took 3 months and over 15 requests, 2 in person.

I'd like to know who to complain to about the place. I have carried pepper spray openly, and no one approached me. However, that was only for very brief stops at the front counter. I got the feeling if I were there any length of time, I would feel better concealing my spray. The person who wrote about how they medicate people was right: One client traveled over an hour by bus to pick up one pill, and they told him he had to do it all over again the next day. The 3rd floor is where this occurs - staff calls the professionals on the 3rd floor the "state doctors".

Difdi said:

Generally speaking, the sorts of people who live in those secured areas can't cash checks...and I've never seen the front reception desk located inside of the secure ward of ANY hospital.



That right there is the main reason why the City of Seattle prefers use licenses rather than leases when people want to hold a trade show in a stadium or convention center. If the city did lease them, the city would lose a LOT of its ability to dictate how they are used.



It might not automatically be a crime to carry there, but be aware that trespassing IS a crime, and if they dislike you carrying on their property, not leaving when asked IS a criminal act. Being told "If you want to come in, leave the gun in the car" is legally binding on you if an employee of the company (such as a security guard) tells you that.



Eek, suddenly my own bad experience with abusive roommates doesn't seem to be quite as bad as it used to...though I am curious how a roommate would have the legal authority to have someone involuntarily committed. How did they manage it?

Click to expand...

RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;