Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Government buildings makes no firearm "rules"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Government buildings makes no firearm "rules"

    I am sure most of us here know what the Washington Preemption reads. For discussion, it reads that no county, city, town or other municipality may create "laws" or "ordinances" that are more restrictive than state law, aside from what is allowed.

    The State Legislature allows it's State Government offices to create rules under the W.A.C.. It has been well noted that there are some state government office (I believe some DSHS offices?) that do not allow firearms?

    Is it a loophole that the State Government jumps through in order to restrict firearms? Technically, the firearm possession isn't restricted by statute, but it is by "rule", therefore they can ask that you leave it in your vehicle?

    The same applies to county and city government buildings. Can the city allow them to create their own "rules" which restrict possession? We know that Valley Medical Center, a hospital that falls under a municipality, restricts firearm possession per "rule".

  2. #2
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871
    Valley Medical Center is in violation of state preemption. They are not a state agency, nor are they an area specified in the RCW that prohibits weapons. They are, however, a public entity.

    Cities, counties and municipalities cannot create rules to prohibit firearms in areas not specified in the RCW. Seattle tried this with the parks gun ban and lost in court. Currently under appeal, they will lose again, especially now that the 2nd Amemndment comes into play, when it did not before.

    State agencies create rules, called WAC's, that govern how they do things. Yes, they can require you to leave your gun in your car. Is there a criminal penalty if you violate this? Dunno, read the applicable WAC for the agency you have a question about.

    Reading the WAC's that pertain to Colleges and Universities, I can find no criminal penalties, unless they tell you to leave and you refuse, then criminal trespass comes into play.

    Most College and University WAC's that prohibit firearms lsit the sanctions that can be taken against students and faculty/staff. Ranging from expulsion to termination. others can only be required to leave.

    The WAC that governs this area for the University of Washington, interestingly, specifies that you must be asked to leave by a "uniformed officer from the UW Police Department". Failure to leave would then result in arrest and charges of criminal trespass.
    Last edited by j2l3; 01-06-2011 at 06:09 PM.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Valley Medical Center is in violation of state preemption. They are not a state agency, nor are they an area specified in the RCW that prohibits weapons. They are, however, a public entity.
    But the Board of Commissioners of VMC does not have the authority to pass laws or ordinances. With that, how does the preemption RCW apply to them? It clearly regulates "laws and ordinances." It is silent on administrative rules.

    I'm familiar with the AGs opinion on this sub-issue. That opinion only postulates that administrative rules are a preemption violation; it does not defend such an interpretation. Would you care to defend it?

    We shall have to wait for the Seattle appeal.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    But the Board of Commissioners of VMC does not have the authority to pass laws or ordinances. With that, how does the preemption RCW apply to them? It clearly regulates "laws and ordinances." It is silent on administrative rules.

    I'm familiar with the AGs opinion on this sub-issue. That opinion only postulates that administrative rules are a preemption violation; it does not defend such an interpretation. Would you care to defend it?

    We shall have to wait for the Seattle appeal.
    IANAL either, but here's my attempt at defending that interpretation.

    First, look at the first part of 9.41.290

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state...
    The statement fully occupies and preempts means that they have total say over who can do what.

    It then goes on to give some powers to Cities, Towns and Counties and other municipaities

    Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law...
    Nowhere in state law is power given to make administrative rules regarding firearms regulation.

    Then 9.41.290 puts limitations on any those local ordinances that it does allow.

    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.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    That last part is key

    "regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. "

  6. #6
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Attorney General Opinion

    Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact local law prohibiting possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities?

    Quick answer... NO

    http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...a=view;down=58

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    Attorney General Opinion

    Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact local law prohibiting possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities?

    Quick answer... NO

    http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...a=view;down=58
    That's correct, however, what about a municipality allowing their city-operating buildings to enact "rules" to prohibit firearms within the premises?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    That's correct, however, what about a municipality allowing their city-operating buildings to enact "rules" to prohibit firearms within the premises?
    First buildings cannot enact rules. Those rules are created by agents of the city, etc.

    Reread my previous post, but here is the applicable highlight:

    The statement in 9.41.290, fully occupies and preempts means the state has total say over who can do what.

    The state then goes on to give some powers to Cities, Towns and Counties and other municipalities. These are limited exceptions to the fully occupies and preempts part.

    Outside of these exceptions, nowhere in state law is power given to anyone other than the state to regulate firearms..
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    First buildings cannot enact rules. Those rules are created by agents of the city, etc.

    Reread my previous post, but here is the applicable highlight:

    The statement in 9.41.290, fully occupies and preempts means the state has total say over who can do what.

    The state then goes on to give some powers to Cities, Towns and Counties and other municipalities. These are limited exceptions to the fully occupies and preempts part.

    Outside of these exceptions, nowhere in state law is power given to anyone other than the state to regulate firearms..
    That makes sense, but do municipal and superior courts have the ability to create rules? Under State Statute, possession of O.C. Spray is not prohibited inside of a court building, but most, if not all municipal and superior courts restrict it's possession beyond the security checkpoint, even though it's preempted by state law.

    RCW 9.91.160

    " (2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020. No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation, or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older from delivering a personal protection spray device to a person authorized to possess such a device."


    According to King County, it's prohibited.


    Generally speaking, commissioned Law -Enforcement personnel on official business are
    excluded from the provisions of this document.

    A. Prohibited Items

    "Chemicals/Incendiary Devices
    Acid/Ammonia/Chlorine/Chemical drain openers/ Liquid Bleach
    Aerosols (any except for personal care or toiletries in limited quantities)
    Any unidentifiable liquid, gas, gel, substance or chemical
    Charcoal/Sulfur
    Fire extinguishers and other compressed gas cylinders
    Flammable Liquids/Gels/Gases (includes Paints, Turpentine and Paint Thinner)
    Fuels (includes Gasoline, Cooking Fuels and Lighter Fluid)
    Gas Torches/Torch Lighters - thin, needle-like flame of air-propelled fire
    Mac.e/Pepper Spray/Tear Gas Explosives or Incendiaries of any kind (includes
    Replicas, Fireworks and Flares)
    Spray Paint"

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    That makes sense, but do municipal and superior courts have the ability to create rules? Under State Statute, possession of O.C. Spray is not prohibited inside of a court building, but most, if not all municipal and superior courts restrict it's possession beyond the security checkpoint, even though it's preempted by state law.

    RCW 9.91.160

    " (2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020. No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation, or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older from delivering a personal protection spray device to a person authorized to possess such a device."


    According to King County, it's prohibited.


    Generally speaking, commissioned Law -Enforcement personnel on official business are
    excluded from the provisions of this document.

    A. Prohibited Items

    "Chemicals/Incendiary Devices
    Acid/Ammonia/Chlorine/Chemical drain openers/ Liquid Bleach
    Aerosols (any except for personal care or toiletries in limited quantities)
    Any unidentifiable liquid, gas, gel, substance or chemical
    Charcoal/Sulfur
    Fire extinguishers and other compressed gas cylinders
    Flammable Liquids/Gels/Gases (includes Paints, Turpentine and Paint Thinner)
    Fuels (includes Gasoline, Cooking Fuels and Lighter Fluid)
    Gas Torches/Torch Lighters - thin, needle-like flame of air-propelled fire
    Mac.e/Pepper Spray/Tear Gas Explosives or Incendiaries of any kind (includes
    Replicas, Fireworks and Flares)
    Spray Paint"
    IANAL, but in my opinion, the restriction on O.C. Spray violates state law.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    That's what I would believe, because the state O.C. statute seems pretty clear that they are full authority on the legislation of O.C. sprays in the entire state, and O.C. spray is not on the list of items prohibited in court buildings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •