ok here's a test. go park illegally at UW. When they ticket or tow your car, go tell them they're not allowed to since the parking rules are "only" spelled out in the WAC, not the RCW. Let me know how that works out for you.
-
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.
-
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.
- Thread starter phoneguy
- Start date
ok here's a test. go park illegally at UW. When they ticket or tow your car, go tell them they're not allowed to since the parking rules are "only" spelled out in the WAC, not the RCW. Let me know how that works out for you.
Phone Guy, did you ever get Work Source turned around on this? Did you get the info you needed between all the discussion of WAC, Heads of State, leased Property and other distractions?
City of Everett owns the train station in which the state Work Source Office is located; or should I say the tax payers own it, it cost American's 44 million.
City of Everett owns the train station in which the state Work Source Office is located; or should I say the tax payers own it, it cost American's 44 million.
Jayd1981
Regular Member
Why don't you try to not be a smart ass first and back up your point. WACs are rules governing state agencies, thus are not crimes. You must violate an RCW to be charged criminally, there is NO RCW banning firearms from worksource. So if you want to contribute to the conversation why don't you explain how a WAC (start by what WAC) would prohibit me from carrying at worksource. Of course adult conversation may very well be beyond your skill set.
Jayd1981
Regular Member
It was a city agency and not a state one, but Cherry did state that an agency rule banning firearms only applied to employees.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
9.41.290 has nothing to do with the issue at all. Legislature wrote laws that apply to the entire state of Washington. What you're saying is that you think it's perfectly acceptable for a state agency to completely ignore say 9.41.280 which deals with weapons on school property. Or maybe 9.41.300 which is more relevant, since it is the law that spells out where weapons are prohibited. Are you saying that they can just ignore this law? Besides, when they say "The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms" what do you think "the state" means? It means Legislature, not administrators.
How about what I found at the bottom of 9.41.010
Preemption and general repealer -- 1961 c 124: "All laws or parts of laws of the state of Washington, its SUBDIVISIONS and municipalities inconsistent herewith are hereby preempted and repealed." [1961 c 124 § 14.]
Short title -- 1935 c 172: "This act may be cited as the 'UNIFORM Firearms Act.'" [1935 c 172 § 18.]
Construction -- 1935 c 172: "This act shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make UNIFORM the law of those states which enact it." [1935 c 172 § 19.]
Added emphasis mine.
It seems pretty clear the intent of the entirety of 9.41 is to make ALL laws regarding firearms the same THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE state. So tell me, where do these administrators get the authority to restrict the general public more than legislature?
FORGET ABOUT 290!
joeroket
Regular Member
Not exactly. What it said was that because they were acting as an employer and not a municipality they were allowed to enact a rule that barred an employee from carrying a firearm.
amlevin
Regular Member
To paraphrase Professor Higgins in Pygmalion (AKA "My Fair Lady), "By Jove! I think he's got it"!
joeroket
Regular Member
Im not focusing on something that is not arguable.
I posted something that shows why they would not be allowed to enact a rule banning firearms and you still hunker down on .290?
You know it's a losing argument to say that the state pre-empts itself as well as I do. But there are WAC's that keep agencies of the state from banning firearms because they are not given the rule making authority to do so.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
To paraphrase Professor Higgins in Pygmalion (AKA "My Fair Lady), "By Jove! I think he's got it"!
Thank you. All you have to do is look at the notes at the bottom of 9.41.010 and it's fairly easy to discern what the entire section was set up to accomplish.
joeroket
Regular Member
A state subdivision is more like a County. Typically subdivisions are soveriegn entities that are given some of the same powers of the state. Subdivisions are not synonymous with state agencies.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
A county is a municipality.
In 290 it says "cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities". The note on 010 says "subdivisions and municipalities". That's because "municipalities" includes cities towns and counties. So tell me what you think a subdivision of the state would be if not a city town or county.
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
To clarify how I view this, it is written in 9.41 and no other place so when it addresses herewith it is talking about RCW 9.41 not a WAC or other RCW outside 9.41 for that matter.
It states its subdivisions and municipalities so it is including the State of Washington that are inconsistent are hereby preempted and repealed.
This would preempt State Agency's in being more restrictive then RCW 9.41
Last edited:
joeroket
Regular Member
It sounds like you just agreed with me. A subdivision is exactly a city, town, or county. It is not a state agency. The difference in useage looks to just be the years that they were used.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
My ex wife works for a municipality in the State of Washington. They are a private insurance company that insures the cities of the state, an insurance pool. I have had the conversation with their attorney (who carries) about pre emption and he agrees that even this insurance pool can pass no rule regarding carry except for employees when in the office. I carry in the office without issue. So keep in mind that the term municipality goes beyond traditional city, county.... it includes taxing districts, fire districts and insurance pools.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
So you're saying that you don't think a state agency is a subdivision of the state? Why do they call it a STATE agency then?
SAF is calling me on Monday. They are following this thread.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
joeroket
Regular Member
A subdivision is something that is a political division of the state that has being given powers similar to that of the state such as taxing, having elected officials and such. A state agency is simply an entity of state business with no powers to tax and having appointed officials with limited powers that are granted to them by WAC.
Don't take what I am saying as me implying that the agencies can create and enforce what ever rule they want. To the contrary, they are bound and limited by WAC as to the type and nature of rules they can enforce and firearms are not one of them.
Last edited:
tombrewster421
Regular Member
So where's your cite that says exactly what you are interpreting a subdivision to be? How do you know it does not include state agencies?