Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Unemployment hearings, WAC, no firearms allowed...

  1. #1
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Unemployment hearings, WAC, no firearms allowed...

    So my previous employer is contesting my unemployment, and in the forms it says 'Firearms and other dangerous weapons are prohibited at hearings and in all Office of Administrative Hearings offices (WAC 12-20-010).

    Assuming its held at an office, and not a court, would that be pre-empted?

    WAC 10-20-010 Agency filings affecting this section
    Firearms, weapons prohibited in administrative hearings.

    (1) Firearms or other dangerous weapons are prohibited at all facilities owned, leased, or operated by the office of administrative hearings and in rooms where the office of administrative hearings is conducting an administrative hearing. This prohibition applies to all parties or witnesses at hearings, all office of administrative hearings employees, and all other persons present. However, it does not apply to law enforcement personnel, security personnel, or military personnel, all while engaged in official duties.

    (2) As used in this chapter, "firearm or other dangerous weapon" means any firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250.

    (3) Possession of a valid concealed weapons permit is not a defense to the prohibition in this section.

    (4) This prohibition does not apply to lawful firearms or other lawful weapons while confined to private motor vehicles in parking areas at hearings facilities.

    (5) This prohibition does not apply to firearms or other dangerous weapons offered as evidence in an administrative hearing.

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    So my previous employer is contesting my unemployment, and in the forms it says 'Firearms and other dangerous weapons are prohibited at hearings and in all Office of Administrative Hearings offices (WAC 12-20-010).

    Assuming its held at an office, and not a court, would that be pre-empted?
    Depends. How bad does the party want that check?
    "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?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886
    My line of reasoning may be flawed here, but if it's the state setting the rule/code/law/etc... then they aren't affected by state pre-emption, as the state can't pre-empt itself...

    Now, if the CITY of Whoville tried the same thing, they would be preempted.

    I could be wrong though.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by G20-IWB24/7 View Post
    My line of reasoning may be flawed here, but if it's the state setting the rule/code/law/etc... then they aren't affected by state pre-emption, as the state can't pre-empt itself...

    Now, if the CITY of Whoville tried the same thing, they would be preempted.

    I could be wrong though.
    I would agree. The agency is not a city, town or municipality and thus fully occupies the regulation within the hearing.

    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.
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I agree to not preempted but since it is a state law I would argue the state has to follow it's own law.Since the State "preempts and fully occupies" this area of law and it specifically spells out where carry is barred.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    So my previous employer is contesting my unemployment, and in the forms it says 'Firearms and other dangerous weapons are prohibited at hearings and in all Office of Administrative Hearings offices (WAC 12-20-010).

    Assuming its held at an office, and not a court, would that be pre-empted?
    You have a better claim under Article 1 Section 24 than 9.41.290, IMO
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Like other said, the State preempts all laws and rules on firearms. The State also allows State Agencies to make rules (WAC's). Therefore, any agency under state control, can restrict firearms. That includes the DSHS offices, the department of licensing, State Parks, the State Capital, etc.

    Most of them don't, but they can.

  8. #8
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Like other said, the State preempts all laws and rules on firearms. The State also allows State Agencies to make rules (WAC's). Therefore, any agency under state control, can restrict firearms. That includes the DSHS offices, the department of licensing, State Parks, the State Capital, etc.

    Most of them don't, but they can.
    This sounds off to me
    Last edited by Deleted_User; 03-21-2011 at 03:41 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Like other said, the State preempts all laws and rules on firearms. The State also allows State Agencies to make rules (WAC's). Therefore, any agency under state control, can restrict firearms. That includes the DSHS offices, the department of licensing, State Parks, the State Capital, etc.

    Most of them don't, but they can.
    BLASPHEMY!!!!!

    9.41.290 is preemption, read it!, 9.41.300 tells the state prohibited places, read it!

    this has been hashed out before,,,

    some are arguing to allow the state agencies to bypass preemption by being special..
    they cant! they are covered by preemption!!!
    they are preempted,,,!!

    i wont search,, but members here have paved the open carry way into dshs, dmv, state liqueur stores, county parks and other places too, in order to preserve our rights and force these agencies to follow state law.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    BLASPHEMY!!!!!

    9.41.290 is preemption, read it!, 9.41.300 tells the state prohibited places, read it!

    this has been hashed out before,,,

    some are arguing to allow the state agencies to bypass preemption by being special..
    they cant! they are covered by preemption!!!
    they are preempted,,,!!

    i wont search,, but members here have paved the open carry way into dshs, dmv, state liqueur stores, county parks and other places too, in order to preserve our rights and force these agencies to follow state law.
    To my knowledge these hearings are an administrative court hearing and presided by an administrative law judge, therefore they would be able to restrict firearms. If you read some of the other WAC's that deal with UI it clearly spells this out as well. The only portion of a UI office that firearms are restricted is in the administrative court hearings.

    Remember RCW 9.41.300 only specifies that areas in connection with court proceedings. It does not specify what type of court the proceedings are held in.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    BLASPHEMY!!!!!

    9.41.290 is preemption, read it!, 9.41.300 tells the state prohibited places, read it!

    this has been hashed out before,,,

    some are arguing to allow the state agencies to bypass preemption by being special..
    they cant! they are covered by preemption!!!
    they are preempted,,,!!

    i wont search,, but members here have paved the open carry way into dshs, dmv, state liqueur stores, county parks and other places too, in order to preserve our rights and force these agencies to follow state law.
    I wish and hope this is true, but until someone can give me some type of legal opinion from the AG or the Washington State Supreme Court, then I'm tending to sway toward believing that the State Legislature allows state agencies to create "rules" to suit their agency's. It may not be enforceable by law, because only the legislature can create laws, but they may deny access or tell you to leave the property.

    WAC's aren't regulated by cities, town, counties or municipalities.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137

    Lock Box?

    If you cannot carry in their presence, should they provide a capacity to store your weapon during the encounter??

    SVG knows a bit about lock boxes

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    If you cannot carry in their presence, should they provide a capacity to store your weapon during the encounter??

    SVG knows a bit about lock boxes
    The problem with that is that the state would be the ones providing the boxes and since they are not pre-empted they then do not have to provide them. Catch22 anyone?
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    To my knowledge these hearings are an administrative court hearing and presided by an administrative law judge, therefore they would be able to restrict firearms. If you read some of the other WAC's that deal with UI it clearly spells this out as well. The only portion of a UI office that firearms are restricted is in the administrative court hearings.

    Remember RCW 9.41.300 only specifies that areas in connection with court proceedings. It does not specify what type of court the proceedings are held in.
    I think this is the bull's eye...and basis.

    +1
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  15. #15
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Our UI office is in a rented building, not a state facility, so they can prohibit the carry of firearms on private property. I had to carry concealed.
    Last edited by amzbrady; 03-21-2011 at 06:12 PM. Reason: incomplete sentence
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    Our UI office is in a rented building, not a state facility, so they can prohibit the carry of firearms on private property. I had to carry concealed.
    I don't believe the state can enter into a contract as the lessee that contains rules that override state law. Once the state enters into a lease the property now becomes quasi-public property and would fall under the rules and laws of Washington State.

    I think they can prohibit firearms if they chose, however the only thing I have found is that they prohibit firearm only in administrative hearings. The managers of each office are bound by the WAC and cannot go any more strict than them as they are their operating guidelines.
    "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

Posting Permissions

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