• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
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:

massivedesign

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
865
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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?
 

SpyderTattoo

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,015
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
The Washington Arms Collectors were a part of the lawsuit that the Second Amendment Foundation filed. The WAC is involved with 2nd Amendment subjects, but in this case, they were not the ones directly filing suit.

And I really don't see the point of even bringing them up, since there really is no parallel in their policies vs. the Worksourse policies. WAC gunshows are held on private property which trumps. The private organization has nothing to do with this argument going on, about state organizations.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
Back on Topic

[h=2]RCW 9A.76.180[/h][h=1]Intimidating a public servant.[/h]
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a public servant's vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.

(2) For purposes of this section "public servant" shall not include jurors.

(3) "Threat" as used in this section means:

(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

(b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110.

(4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.


 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
And I really don't see the point of even bringing them up, since there really is no parallel in their policies vs. the Worksourse policies. WAC gunshows are held on private property which trumps. The private organization has nothing to do with this argument going on, about state organizations.

I brought them up because they should be suing the state over this.

Washington Arms Collectors sued Seattle for a violation of preemption because of an administrative rule. The Unemployment Office's administrative rule is also a violation of a preemption statute: the Washington State Constitution. If they sued for one preemption violation, why not another?
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
I brought them up because they should be suing the state over this.

Washington Arms Collectors sued Seattle for a violation of preemption because of an administrative rule. The Unemployment Office's administrative rule is also a violation of a preemption statute: the Washington State Constitution. If they sued for one preemption violation, why not another?

Don't ask us, ask the BoD at WAC
 

rcw_violations

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
5
Location
Washington
Here's the requested documents and pictures

I have provided two attachments:

One attachment is a picture of a sign that that ESD (Employment Security Department) illegally displays at each of its 36 Work Source centers and additional buildings that are used by ESD staff. Here's the thumbnail which you can enlarge by clicking on the picture:

esd_9.41.270_sign.jpg

The other attachment is the internal policy manual that shows how ESD mis-uses RCW 9.41.270 to create locational bans on the carrying of pistols for self defense. Here's what their internal policy manual states:

View attachment 0020-workplace-security.pdf

------------------

Weapons (including firearms with or without a permit) are not allowed in ESD facilities or in vehicles being used to conduct official business. Exception: Commissioned officers, or security personnel under contract with the department while engaged in official duties. (Page 3)

------------------

Signs and placards prohibiting weapons must be posted in the facility. (Page 4)

------------------

RCW 9.41.270 “Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm - Unlawful carrying or handling - Penalty - Exceptions.” (Page 7)

------------------

As a result of your behavior I am notifying you that you may no longer obtain services at [location] [may state a period of time or leave as indefinite.

You may obtain Unemployment Insurance services over the internet at www.go2UI.com. You may use this website to file or re-open your Unemployment Insurance claim and file your weekly certification. The site also provides information about unemployment insurance."
(Page 12)

------------------

The person who has overall authority for operating ESD, is an attorney who reports directly to Governor Gregoire:

Paul Trause
Commissioner of ESD
P.O. Box 9046
212 Maple Park
Olympia, WA 98507-9046
360-902-9464
PTrause@esd.wa.gov
 
Last edited:

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
so what does WAC 236-12-470 have to do with Employment Security Offices?

WAC 236-12-470 “Prohibiting access to state capitol buildings and grounds while armed with dangerous weapons or with devices to disrupt state business.”

(1) No person shall carry any firearm or other dangerous weapon as described in chapter 9.41 RCW on the state capitol grounds or in any building on the state capitol grounds: Provided, That this regulation shall not apply to duly authorized federal, state, and local law enforcement officers or to any federal, state, and local government employee authorized to carry firearms in the course of their public employment; and: Provided, That a person may carry a firearm in accordance with chapter 9.41 RCW.

(2) No person may carry into any building on the state capitol grounds any voice-amplification equipment, blow horns, sirens, or other similar noise-producing devices which may be used to disrupt the conduct of state business by state employees.
 

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Snohomish, WA, ,
Oh. Thanks, junior.

Dean,
Sorry to have taken so long to reply to you! Was on a 48.

Thank you! You have restored my faith in you. I really DID think you had gone soft there. BTW, I am a public servant, and I think that was an intimidating statement you just made there:rolleyes:

However:
At my age.....calling me junior is not an insult. In fact, my nametag at work says Senior on it, so I take your comment as more of a compliment. Kinda like a bartender asking a 58 year old woman for her ID.

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?

Appreciate the lesson in Common Law 101. I'm very familiar with it and our family has utilized those tenants to good effect.
The agency can bar guns with the WAC for all their employees, just as the Universities do for their students and the above aforementioned Capital building.

In regards to my original question:
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.
Am I to understand that you are saying if I carried into the agency I could be arrested and charged with a crime for violating a WAC? I thought I had to violate an RCW......and I thought 9.41.300 listed all the places I had to worry about. Now you are telling me I have to read ALL the WAC's and carry accordingly, right?

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.?

Glad you clarified this in your follow up posts. Had me confused too for a second.
 

rcw_violations

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
5
Location
Washington
For all of the folks who think that a state agency has the authority to make up rules or laws to bar the carrying of firearms, see what the gun prohibitionists have to say:

It is legal in this state to carry a loaded weapon in full view without a permit, even in government buildings such as the state Capitol – and into legislative hearing rooms during a public hearing.

http://www.washingtonceasefire.org/advocacy
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I believe from reading an earlier link they are saying it is policy and that they will trespass you and if you return then request you be cited for criminal trespass!
Now how can it be criminal trespass when it is a State Agency open to the public and one has not violated any laws.

So I feel it boils down to who is going to take the ball and run with it as it will not be cheap. Trying to get support from our Legislatures may be futile as I have found recently as the Chairman of the Judiciary will not let it proceed with less restrictive gun laws.
 
Last edited:

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
BigDave that is my read also. It is going to be tough for someone on unemployment to be a test case. People on unemployment don't have gobs of cash laying around to give lawyers, and the legislature isn't going to change anything.

That's why I brought up Washington Arms Collector's. They sued Seattle - they should sue the State of Washington. It's a very similar deprivation of rights.

I suggest someone with legitimate business at an umemployment office ask their state representative or senator for an attorney general's opinion on the matter, specifically the constitutional issue. To ask about the preemption (9.41.290) issue would be a mistake. It would likely result in an AG's opinion that agrees with mine: that 9.41.290 doesn't apply to a state agency. The AGs office is unlikely to analyze the constitutional issue unless specifically asked to.

It would be a start.
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
There is possibly another option as I have been addressing the issue of securing firearms while visiting at the State, County and City Prisons and Jails which have not been complied with for the most part, ever.
I have been discussing this with my Rep and he did get the ball moving on addressing the Department of Corrections as to their complying with RCW 9.94 Prisoners — correctional institutions and with in that

9.94.043 Deadly weapons -- Possession on premises by person not a prisoner
A person, other than a person serving a sentence in a penal institution of this state, is guilty of possession of contraband on the premises of a state correctional institution in the first degree if, without authorization to do so, the person knowingly possesses or has under his or her control a deadly weapon on or in the buildings or adjacent grounds subject to the care, control, or supervision of a state correctional institution. Deadly weapon is used as defined in RCW 9A.04.110: PROVIDED, That such correctional buildings, grounds, or property are properly posted pursuant to RCW 9.94.047, and such person has knowingly entered thereon: PROVIDED FURTHER, That the provisions of this section do not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the correctional institution premises, proceeds directly along an access road to the administration building and promptly checks his or her firearm(s) with the appropriate authorities. The person may reclaim his or her firearm(s) upon leaving, but he or she must immediately and directly depart from the premises.

Possession of contraband on the premises of a state correctional institution in the first degree is a class B felony.


And applying this to County and City Jails we turn to;


9.94.049"Correctional institution" and "state correctional institution" defined.

(1) For the purposes of this chapter, the term "correctional institution" means any place designated by law for the keeping of persons held in custody under process of law, or under lawful arrest, including state prisons, county and local jails, and other facilities operated by the department of corrections or local governmental units primarily for the purposes of punishment, correction, or rehabilitation following conviction of a criminal offense.

(2) For the purposes of RCW 9.94.043 and 9.94.045, "state correctional institution" means all state correctional facilities under the supervision of the secretary of the department of corrections used solely for the purpose of confinement of convicted felons

So clearly it is provided for but the State Institutions have refused to accommodate our citizens licensed to conceal carry to check their firearms while visiting. Note I just accomplished this last week with Yakima County as I was the first citizen to have my firearm checked while visiting and will again be the first to check my firearm at 2 of the Superior Courts located in the Public Side of the Jail and downstairs.

My Representative is awaiting a response to his request at to what status of the State Facilities of securing citizens firearms and then if they are not in compliance he would move forward to have a hearing on the matter of why they are not following State Law.

As we all know the wheels of Justice turn slow and maybe after this tasked then look to take care of the Employment Security Department on their issues.

If you have a family member, friend or do out reach work for the Department of Corrections but why should one be denied to secure their firearms visiting these facilities.

Though I did get the Monroe Correctional Complex to acknowledge and provide a partial movement forward by having visitors secure their firearms in their personal vehicles and notify the tower, I know it does not meet the requirements but for now I felt some could work with it until it is corrected.
 
Last edited:

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
This is one of those situations where the SAF would be very beneficial as they have the backing and legal resources to drop the hammer on this and get it resolved.
 
Top