Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 100

Thread: OK I am going to Work Source. They say they can not help me.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    429

    Angry OK I am going to Work Source. They say they can not help me.

    Why. Because of a illegal sign on the door. I really need to find work.
    Any PDFs on line I can give to them that has the law on my side?
    And to the Police when they meet me?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    What sign are you talking about? If it's a no-guns signs, it's not illegal, in my opinion.

    State preemption does not apply, as the unemployment office is a state agency. The State does not preempt itself.

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    If one needs a job bad enough they might consider leaving their firearm home or in the car. Which is the priority, being right? Or feeding yourself and family? Any gun prohibitions can be dealt with later.
    "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?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    What sign are you talking about? If it's a no-guns signs, it's not illegal, in my opinion.

    State preemption does not apply, as the unemployment office is a state agency. The State does not preempt itself.
    This argument does not hold water. It's no different than saying that "congress made this law, but they don't have to follow it". I don't see how an administrative code can go against the law of the state. The law is the law.

    Not every gun law is the preemption statute. The state should be following the laws it creates.
    Last edited by tombrewster421; 11-18-2011 at 03:53 PM.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Get a picture of the signage so you will know what law they say one would be violating, which there is none to my knowledge as the Director of Work Source feels it is with in his power to restrict firearms for the safety of his employees which is not covered in RCW 9.41.300.

    I remember someone from OCDO recently reported on open carrying into a work source recently with out an issue.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    What sign are you talking about? If it's a no-guns signs, it's not illegal, in my opinion.

    State preemption does not apply, as the unemployment office is a state agency. The State does not preempt itself.
    The State Agencies as well cannot make law on their own.

    This is where the Director feels it is with in his/her powers to run the department and tires to justify the gun ban by saying it is for the safety or their employees, hmmm kind of sounds like the Seattle City Parks except it being a State Agency.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Get a picture of the signage so you will know what law they say one would be violating, which there is none to my knowledge as the Director of Work Source feels it is with in his power to restrict firearms for the safety of his employees which is not covered in RCW 9.41.300.

    I remember someone from OCDO recently reported on open carrying into a work source recently with out an issue.
    On the sign they quote RCW 9.41.300. Do I have to go back there and take a picture?

  8. #8
    Regular Member MadHatter66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    If one needs a job bad enough they might consider leaving their firearm home or in the car. Which is the priority, being right? Or feeding yourself and family? Any gun prohibitions can be dealt with later.
    This really is where I am at, the Bremerton Worksource has the same prohibition... I need a job more, so I just put on a jacket as I would not go to that neighborhood, or even that building unarmed as there are a lot of people assaulted there...

  9. #9
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by phone guy View Post
    On the sign they quote RCW 9.41.300. Do I have to go back there and take a picture?
    The picture was a recommendation only, if they are quoting RCW 9.41.300 then where in that RCW restricts possession of your firearm with in there? What would an officer cite? It is open to the public and you would be with in the law lawfully carry your firearm.

    Will it or may it cause issues, yes it could but then you how far do you want to take it? As stated in another post which is more important at this point in time? Do you go in concealed or not carry and in hopes of finding work or do you push the issue now or at a later date?
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  10. #10
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    This horse has already been beaten before. I hate it too, but I need a job too. Think about it, your not going to be able to OC at an interview. Most places don't allow carry of any type for employees.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by phone guy View Post
    Why. Because of a illegal sign on the door. I really need to find work.
    Any PDFs on line I can give to them that has the law on my side?
    And to the Police when they meet me?
    Please show me that you didn't give up some of your rights.
    Have you ever submitted to a drug test?
    Ever gave your employeer your social security number?

    Just for starters.

    Pat

  12. #12
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    The Unemployment office in Kennewick has a no firearms sign on their door and when I asked about it they said they rent the building from Goodwill and it is private property. They can make what ever rules they want.

    I had carried to an interview at Express Personell and when I had to take my pee test, the guy told me to empty my pockets and take my coat off, I did and he said I could not take my firearm in with me so I put it on the table and told him he would have to be responsible for it while I filled the cup. They were very casual.
    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

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850

    The wife's unimpressed...

    And so am I. I was just today talking to a friend who will be losing his house in the next month or so. He wouldn't be foolish enough to quibble about OC vs CC if it meant getting work. Priorities...

    But, in my book, your Freedom trumps my wife's opinion of your carry choices. Have a great day!
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    What sign are you talking about? If it's a no-guns signs, it's not illegal, in my opinion.

    State preemption does not apply, as the unemployment office is a state agency. The State does not preempt itself.
    Dean,
    Opinions really don't fly on this forum where laws are concerned. Please cite the RCW to back up your assertion that it is illegal to carry either OC or CC into the State unemployment agency office. I don't see it in 9.41.300.

    Now, if you are just being sarcastic, which I know you love to do, and are just saying it is not illegal to put up the sign saying it is illegal to carry, then I'm sorry. I somehow missed the sarcasm font.

    Cheers.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    Opinions really don't fly on this forum where laws are concerned.
    Oh. Thanks, junior.

    Pardon me, but when I make a statement here on OCDO-WA and don't qualify it with the words "in my opinion" them I'm accused of being a bully or troll, or someone who is unwilling to accept that other's thoughts on the matter might have some validity. Excuse me for trying to soften my message.

    Leave aside, for a moment, the state constitution. We operate under a British Common Law system, where that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed. Where, in the law, is the unemployment office not allowed to bar guns with an administrative rule?

    Clearly, Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution applies here, but there is no case law to back up my opinion on that. I doubt that anyone shoving the state constitution under some administrator's nose will help in this situation. So, as a practical matter, in my opinion, they can ban guns, and they will continue to do so until someone sues them. Where is the W.A.C.?

  16. #16
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Oh. Thanks, junior.

    Pardon me, but when I make a statement here on OCDO-WA and don't qualify it with the words "in my opinion" them I'm accused of being a bully or troll, or someone who is unwilling to accept that other's thoughts on the matter might have some validity. Excuse me for trying to soften my message.

    Leave aside, for a moment, the state constitution. We operate under a British Common Law system, where that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed. Where, in the law, is the unemployment office not allowed to bar guns with an administrative rule?

    Clearly, Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution applies here, but there is no case law to back up my opinion on that. I doubt that anyone shoving the state constitution under some administrator's nose will help in this situation. So, as a practical matter, in my opinion, they can ban guns, and they will continue to do so until someone sues them. Where is the W.A.C.?
    That's the thing, the WAC should not have the authority to ban guns because as a part of the state, they should have to follow the laws of the state. Does the federal government have to follow the laws that they make? If the state supposedly can't preempt itself then the city of Seattle could argue that they could make "administrative codes" that restrict carry in city buildings because it's not more restrictive than the state. If the state can do it, so can Seattle. The state should follow its own LAWS and not make up RULES that contradict those LAWS.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    and they will continue to do so until someone sues them. Where is the W.A.C.?
    Where is the Washington Arms Collectors?

  18. #18
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Where is the Washington Arms Collectors?
    Why are you quoting your own question? I think you know that you were referring to Washington Administrative Code, not Washington Arms Collectors.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    I think you know that you were referring to Washington Administrative Code, not Washington Arms Collectors.
    No. I was referring to the Washington Arms Collectors. They should be pouncing on stuff like this.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    I can't help but audibly facepalm at deanf's posts... They're obviously troll posts.

    If the state doesn't restrict it, it's legal. End of story. That includes worksource. The Revised Code of Washington doesn't restrict carry in a worksource building, so it's legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    I can't help but audibly facepalm at deanf's posts... They're obviously troll posts.
    Pardon me if I have a different way of analyzing the situation.

    The reality is that some state offices do restrict carry, RCWs notwithstanding. They won't stop until they are sued.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Pardon me if I have a different way of analyzing the situation.

    The reality is that some state offices do restrict carry, RCWs notwithstanding. They won't stop until they are sued.
    Doesn't make their restrictions legal.

    Also, LOVE the partial quote!
    Last edited by .45ACPaddy; 11-19-2011 at 06:32 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    Also, LOVE the partial quote!
    Oh, you mean as opposed to some who violate message board etiquette and always quote the whole post they are responding to, instead of just the relevant portions? Now that's trolling.

  24. #24
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    No. I was referring to the Washington Arms Collectors. They should be pouncing on stuff like this.
    Why would the Washington Arms Collectors be involved in this? They are not a grassroots or lobbying organization... They put on gun shows. Now, if you would have said SAF, or CCRKBA then your post might have held water...

    Considering that you think the WAC has anything to do with puts all of your posts in question.
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    Why would the Washington Arms Collectors be involved in this?
    They sued Seattle over the preemption violations in city parks but they can't be expected to sue the state over a constitutional violation? Why is that? And who's posts are in question?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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