Spokane Mission St liquor store

Not my normal store, but I have been in it around a half dozen times and open carried in it 3-4 times.

Entered the store open carrying on Saturday (the 2nd). Store had no patrons in it at the time, two male employees each standing at a register talking to each other. Went right to what I wanted and snagged a bottle and then went to the closest register to where I was at the time.

Took about 20 seconds to pay, I took one step away from the register when the man at the other register said, "I would appreciate it if next time you could leave your firearm in your rig."

First off, rig? I'm not a trucker, who talks like that? Anyways, back on point.

I stated that this was a WA state liquor store, and as such I would continue to carry in the store as legally allowed.

The man then told me that yes it was a state liquor store but it was his and he could set policy.

Told him he was free to set any policy he wanted as long as it fell in line with state law, and seeing how the liquor store did not fall under a no firearm zone like the court house and did not bar minors from entering the facility he could not prevent me from carrying in the store without violating state law.

He seemed to be surprised not only that I knew what the hell I was talking about but that he had someone questioning his authority, so I guess that led in his decision to change his tactic. He then said, "Well I don't know why anyone would need to carry a gun into any store."

Not wanting to get pulled into any further conversation with this guy who obviously wasn't going to have his view changed, I told him well that was tough because once I put it on, it didn't come off until I got home and I would not be leaving it in an unattended vehicle for any length.

He paused, stared at me for a second and then shrugged at me and said. "So...?"

I responded with," So. Have a nice day." and turned and left.



Just a heads up for any dry siders that this gentleman appears to have an issue with people carrying in "his" store. Next time I run dry I will make sure to stop back in and then update with what I expect will be a non-issue just like the first 3-4 times I was in this location.

Somewhere here in the WA forum someone posted a copy of an e-mail from the Tacoma Liquor board stating that WA liquor stores are supposed to follow state law. He apologized for any inconvenience and would contact the offending store. The no gun rule is only for employees. Maybe you can dig through the older posts and print it out next time you go there.

So this was a state-owned store and not a private business that is licensed by the state to sell liquor?

In Washington State there are 164 state liquor stores and 159 contract liquor stores located across the state, and the Washington State Liquor Control Board governs the sale of liquor in Washington State.

If this is a contract liquor store then they likely have the right to restrict firearms.

http://liq.wa.gov/stores/find-store

Someone to call:

GRANT BULSKI (509) 625-5523 District Manager for Spokane Area Stores, WSLCB.

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=49

from Hill, Earl R <EH@liq.wa.gov>
To m1gunr@gmail.com
Cc
"McKim, Bea M" <BMK@liq.wa.gov>,
"Hilt, Sandy L" <SH@liq.wa.gov>,
"O'Donnell, Charles J" <COD@liq.wa.gov>
Date Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Subject RCW 9.41.300 & Liquor stores
Hello Mr. Starks,
My name is Earl Hill and I’m a District Manager for the Liquor Control Board
covering the Tacoma area.
I’m responding to your concern regarding a recent shopping experience at our
retail store # 122 at 72nd and Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. I have reviewed the
incident as described and it appears that while you were shopping, a customer
initially noticed your firearm and commented that you were not allowed to have
one in the store. Our store employees overheard this and supported that you
were not allowed to carry while the store. Upon reviewing the signs posted in the
store; I have determined that the signs were meant to be advisory for our staff
and not for our retail customers. Our store employees were misinformed about
the intent of the sign and I have authorized their removal.
Let me apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We value
customer feedback and I appreciate you letting me know about this incident. Let
me know if you wish to discuss further by calling or emailing me at your
convenience.
Thank you
Earl Hill, District Manager Office: 253/471-5338 Cell: 253/370-2250
Roberson Bldg Ste 208 Fax: 360/704-5021 EH@LIQ.WA.GOV
6240 Tacoma Mall Blvd
Tacoma WA 98409-6819

Ok, so I am going to momentarily hijack this thread.

It was my understanding that carrying in any area that was designated as a "21 or older" area by the State Liquor Control Board was a no carry zone. Wouldn't that make the Liquor stores a no go since they are all designated "21 or older" by the SLCB?

RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places
(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:
(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or

No. Liquor stores are not prohibited to those under 21. You may take your son/daughter with you while you shop. As long as they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.

gogodawgs said:

No. Liquor stores are not prohibited to those under 21. You may take your son/daughter with you while you shop. As long as they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Click to expand...

Oh wow. I've been avoiding the liquor stores since I thought that I couldn't enter them with my firearm one... Also I don't drink, but my friends drink and shop a lot when I'm with them. Lol

xxx.jakk.xxx said:

Oh wow. I've been avoiding the liquor stores since I thought that I couldn't enter them with my firearm one... Also I don't drink, but my friends drink and shop a lot when I'm with them. Lol

Click to expand...

Don't feel bad, I actually thought liquor stores fell under the same RCW restriction that you posted. You learn something everyday, thank you for the lesson.

BigDave said:

In Washington State there are 164 state liquor stores and 159 contract liquor stores located across the state, and the Washington State Liquor Control Board governs the sale of liquor in Washington State.

If this is a contract liquor store then they likely have the right to restrict firearms.

http://liq.wa.gov/stores/find-store

Click to expand...

Tonasket store is contract, I'll ask next time I am in there if they have that freedom or not. I suspect their contract with the state says that they must abide state law. I don't go in their often, so don't hold your breath...maybe I'll make a point of it next time we go to town (within the next two weeks,,,,if I remember)

Hej NavyLCDR!

The store in Tonasket is reasonable...the owner/contract holder only...older gal, no employees. I go in there for alcohol (she stocks just for me) to make herbal extracts. She knows me and I really do think she will tell me straight. It is not like I will be talking to an "employee". There arn't any as far as I know, only her. Very small store, maybe 400 sqft?

NavyLCDR said:

That must be some "herbal extract"! Does it make your bananas and monkeys dance? :banana: :monkey

Click to expand...

No, it tastes horrible, but it is less expensive then purchasing at the health food's store. One use is for colds, aid in sleep, antibiotic etc. First Nation stuff.

hermannr said:

No, it tastes horrible, but it is less expensive then purchasing at the health food's store. One use is for colds, aid in sleep, antibiotic etc. First Nation stuff.

Click to expand...

And of course the main ingredient is alcohol???????

I can remember using "that remedy" too. Good thing about Ethanol is that it has so many beneficial uses. Keep a barrel of it around and you have beverage, antiseptic, anesthetic, analgesic, antibiotic, paint thinner, and even motor fuel. Don't know about it really curing anything but by ingesting enough most don't care as much about the symptoms of what's ailing them.

Ok, we went to town today and stopped by the liquor store, Picked up some of that nasty over-proof stuff for my "remedies", and some top shelf rum for me Also stopped by the Wells Fargo bank and Al's IGA. Not a word.

Anyway, had conversation with owner/contractor of our local liquor store on carry of firearms in her store. The state contract says the contractor cannot have a firearm (funny wording) "retained" in a contract store. (do they mean you can't have one under the counter????)

The contract says absolutely nothing about customers and firearms. To her, the point is moot, as "People carry into this store all the time". (and she had not even noticed my CZ on my hip)

hermannr said:

Ok, we went to town today and stopped by the liquor store, Picked up some of that nasty over-proof stuff for my "remedies", and some top shelf rum for me Also stopped by the Wells Fargo bank and Al's IGA. Not a word.

Anyway, had conversation with owner/contractor of our local liquor store on carry of firearms in her store. The state contract says the contractor cannot have a firearm (funny wording) "retained" in a contract store. (do they mean you can't have one under the counter????)

The contract says absolutely nothing about customers and firearms. To her, the point is moot, as "People carry into this store all the time". (and she had not even noticed my CZ on my hip)

Click to expand...

I feel that the right to refuse service still applies in a privately owned business even if they are contracted to sell alcohol.
I have not pursued this with WSLCB either for the fact of letting the sleeping dog lay as it may dawn on them and make the contractors aware of this issue.

Big Dave I tend to agree with you...

The reason being: it is not in the contract as demanded/permitted/or prohibited. There just is nothing at all. In my understanding of contracts, that would mean it would be discressionary on the part of the contractor.

The only mention of firearms was was the strange "retained" thing, and that was in a section pertinent to the behavior of the contractor, not customers.

Strange the state does not want it's contractors to be able to protect themselves. In Tonasket it probably doesn't make a lot of difference though, the liquor store is directly accross the street from the cop shop as well as all the people that carry around here. The gal even mentioned how "everyone carries their guns in here all the time"

hermannr said:

The only mention of firearms was was the strange "retained" thing, and that was in a section pertinent to the behavior of the contractor, not customers.

Click to expand...

Last year I dealt with a similar law/ordinance in Yakima County where it was requiring vendors to restrict firearms at events and the penalty for not doing so would be revocation of their license.
My contention was that it was in violation of WA State Const Art 1 Sec 24 and that it was prohibited in RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption and the offending county ordinance was removed.

With this in mind and Cherry v Metro (employer employee relationship) does a State Agency have the authority to enforce such an element in a contract restricting firearms?

BigDave said:

Last year I dealt with a similar law/ordinance in Yakima County where it was requiring vendors to restrict firearms at events and the penalty for not doing so would be revocation of their license.
My contention was that it was in violation of WA State Const Art 1 Sec 24 and that it was prohibited in RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption and the offending county ordinance was removed.

With this in mind and Cherry v Metro (employer employee relationship) does a State Agency have the authority to enforce such an element in a contract restricting firearms?

Click to expand...

Let's not forget the PNW Shooting Park vs. Sequim decision where the court found that conditions can be imposed on Leases. This could also be extended into Contracts and Franchises.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9666774/Pacific-NW-Shooting-Park-v-City-of-SequimSupreme-Court-decision

Even the recent "Nordyke" decision came out in favor of Government limitations on firearms in leased or rented government facilities.

Both of these decisions came before McDonald v City of Chicago.

An update on Nordyke, on June 14, 2011 9th Circuit Orders Alameda County to file Brief in Nordyke v. King for a response to the Nordykes' Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

So this one is not put to bed yet and I think most will agree that the Sequim case was a catastrophe as it was solely based on contractual agreements.