• 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.

Government buildings makes no firearm "rules"

A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
I am sure most of us here know what the Washington Preemption reads. For discussion, it reads that no county, city, town or other municipality may create "laws" or "ordinances" that are more restrictive than state law, aside from what is allowed.

The State Legislature allows it's State Government offices to create rules under the W.A.C.. It has been well noted that there are some state government office (I believe some DSHS offices?) that do not allow firearms?

Is it a loophole that the State Government jumps through in order to restrict firearms? Technically, the firearm possession isn't restricted by statute, but it is by "rule", therefore they can ask that you leave it in your vehicle?

The same applies to county and city government buildings. Can the city allow them to create their own "rules" which restrict possession? We know that Valley Medical Center, a hospital that falls under a municipality, restricts firearm possession per "rule".
 
j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Valley Medical Center is in violation of state preemption. They are not a state agency, nor are they an area specified in the RCW that prohibits weapons. They are, however, a public entity.

Cities, counties and municipalities cannot create rules to prohibit firearms in areas not specified in the RCW. Seattle tried this with the parks gun ban and lost in court. Currently under appeal, they will lose again, especially now that the 2nd Amemndment comes into play, when it did not before.

State agencies create rules, called WAC's, that govern how they do things. Yes, they can require you to leave your gun in your car. Is there a criminal penalty if you violate this? Dunno, read the applicable WAC for the agency you have a question about.

Reading the WAC's that pertain to Colleges and Universities, I can find no criminal penalties, unless they tell you to leave and you refuse, then criminal trespass comes into play.

Most College and University WAC's that prohibit firearms lsit the sanctions that can be taken against students and faculty/staff. Ranging from expulsion to termination. others can only be required to leave.

The WAC that governs this area for the University of Washington, interestingly, specifies that you must be asked to leave by a "uniformed officer from the UW Police Department". Failure to leave would then result in arrest and charges of criminal trespass.
 
Last edited:
D

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
Valley Medical Center is in violation of state preemption. They are not a state agency, nor are they an area specified in the RCW that prohibits weapons. They are, however, a public entity.
Click to expand...

But the Board of Commissioners of VMC does not have the authority to pass laws or ordinances. With that, how does the preemption RCW apply to them? It clearly regulates "laws and ordinances." It is silent on administrative rules.

I'm familiar with the AGs opinion on this sub-issue. That opinion only postulates that administrative rules are a preemption violation; it does not defend such an interpretation. Would you care to defend it?

We shall have to wait for the Seattle appeal.
 
ak56

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
deanf said:
But the Board of Commissioners of VMC does not have the authority to pass laws or ordinances. With that, how does the preemption RCW apply to them? It clearly regulates "laws and ordinances." It is silent on administrative rules.

I'm familiar with the AGs opinion on this sub-issue. That opinion only postulates that administrative rules are a preemption violation; it does not defend such an interpretation. Would you care to defend it?

We shall have to wait for the Seattle appeal.
Click to expand...

IANAL either, but here's my attempt at defending that interpretation.

First, look at the first part of 9.41.290

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state...
Click to expand...

The statement fully occupies and preempts means that they have total say over who can do what.

It then goes on to give some powers to Cities, Towns and Counties and other municipaities

Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law...
Click to expand...

Nowhere in state law is power given to make administrative rules regarding firearms regulation.

Then 9.41.290 puts limitations on any those local ordinances that it does allow.

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.
Click to expand...
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
ak56

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
Aaron1124 said:
That's correct, however, what about a municipality allowing their city-operating buildings to enact "rules" to prohibit firearms within the premises?
Click to expand...
First buildings cannot enact rules. Those rules are created by agents of the city, etc.

Reread my previous post, but here is the applicable highlight:

The statement in 9.41.290, fully occupies and preempts means the state has total say over who can do what.

The state then goes on to give some powers to Cities, Towns and Counties and other municipalities. These are limited exceptions to the fully occupies and preempts part.

Outside of these exceptions, nowhere in state law is power given to anyone other than the state to regulate firearms..
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
ak56 said:
First buildings cannot enact rules. Those rules are created by agents of the city, etc.

Reread my previous post, but here is the applicable highlight:

The statement in 9.41.290, fully occupies and preempts means the state has total say over who can do what.

The state then goes on to give some powers to Cities, Towns and Counties and other municipalities. These are limited exceptions to the fully occupies and preempts part.

Outside of these exceptions, nowhere in state law is power given to anyone other than the state to regulate firearms..
Click to expand...

That makes sense, but do municipal and superior courts have the ability to create rules? Under State Statute, possession of O.C. Spray is not prohibited inside of a court building, but most, if not all municipal and superior courts restrict it's possession beyond the security checkpoint, even though it's preempted by state law.

RCW 9.91.160

" (2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020. No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation, or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older from delivering a personal protection spray device to a person authorized to possess such a device."


According to King County, it's prohibited.


Generally speaking, commissioned Law -Enforcement personnel on official business are
excluded from the provisions of this document.

A. Prohibited Items

"Chemicals/Incendiary Devices
• Acid/Ammonia/Chlorine/Chemical drain openers/ Liquid Bleach
• Aerosols (any except for personal care or toiletries in limited quantities)
• Any unidentifiable liquid, gas, gel, substance or chemical
• Charcoal/Sulfur
• Fire extinguishers and other compressed gas cylinders
• Flammable Liquids/Gels/Gases (includes Paints, Turpentine and Paint Thinner)
• Fuels (includes Gasoline, Cooking Fuels and Lighter Fluid)
• Gas Torches/Torch Lighters - thin, needle-like flame of air-propelled fire
• Mac.e/Pepper Spray/Tear Gas Explosives or Incendiaries of any kind (includes
Replicas, Fireworks and Flares)
• Spray Paint"
 
ak56

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
Aaron1124 said:
That makes sense, but do municipal and superior courts have the ability to create rules? Under State Statute, possession of O.C. Spray is not prohibited inside of a court building, but most, if not all municipal and superior courts restrict it's possession beyond the security checkpoint, even though it's preempted by state law.

RCW 9.91.160

" (2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020. No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation, or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older from delivering a personal protection spray device to a person authorized to possess such a device."


According to King County, it's prohibited.


Generally speaking, commissioned Law -Enforcement personnel on official business are
excluded from the provisions of this document.

A. Prohibited Items

"Chemicals/Incendiary Devices
• Acid/Ammonia/Chlorine/Chemical drain openers/ Liquid Bleach
• Aerosols (any except for personal care or toiletries in limited quantities)
• Any unidentifiable liquid, gas, gel, substance or chemical
• Charcoal/Sulfur
• Fire extinguishers and other compressed gas cylinders
• Flammable Liquids/Gels/Gases (includes Paints, Turpentine and Paint Thinner)
• Fuels (includes Gasoline, Cooking Fuels and Lighter Fluid)
• Gas Torches/Torch Lighters - thin, needle-like flame of air-propelled fire
• Mac.e/Pepper Spray/Tear Gas Explosives or Incendiaries of any kind (includes
Replicas, Fireworks and Flares)
• Spray Paint"
Click to expand...

IANAL, but in my opinion, the restriction on O.C. Spray violates state law.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
That's what I would believe, because the state O.C. statute seems pretty clear that they are full authority on the legislation of O.C. sprays in the entire state, and O.C. spray is not on the list of items prohibited in court buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top