imported post
I went out and got some advice from an unnamed State employee... good honest, objective opinion... Hopefully the Seattle case turns out well....
Thank you for your patience as we’ve researched this matter. I’ve tried to collect as much information as possible in order to give you the most thorough response to your questions and concerns over the course of our correspondence.
Based on RCW 14.08.010 (attached), “municipality” is defined to mean in part any port district. Therefore, the Port of Seattle does fit the description of a municipality.
A WA Supreme Court case suggests that the rule enacted by the Port of Seattle, prohibiting weapons in all areas of the airport, is not in violation of WA’s firearms laws. The WA State Supreme Court case, Pacific Northwest Shooting Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342; 144 P.3d 276 (2006) is attached.
The specific language that will be of interest to you can be found on page 7, under paragraph 31 and 32 (P31 and P32). It is under these paragraphs where the court explains that a municipality, like a private property owner, may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests. If the Court were to apply this interpretation, it might find that the Port of Seattle has not violated RCW 9.41.290 (the state firearm preemption statute) by enacting a rule prohibiting firearms in all areas of the airport on the grounds that in operating the airport, the Port of Seattle is acting in a proprietary capacity; it is operating the airport for the private advantage of a municipality; the municipality being the Port of Seattle. When acting in a proprietary capacity, a municipality, like a private property owner, may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests.
Regarding the AG opinion concerning the authority of cities to regulate the possession of firearms on city property, the attorney who wrote the opinion explained that “although the language of RCW 9.41.290 (the state firearm preemption statute) is broad, it does not preempt all city authority with respect to firearms.” The attorney then refers to the case I cited above, Pacific Northwest Shooting Association v. Sequim, and another firearms case decided by the WA Supreme Court, Cherry v. Seattle (116 Wn.2d 794, 808 P.2d 746 (1991), and explains that “under Cherry and Pacific Northwest Shooting Park, RCW 9.41.290 does not preempt a city’s ability to impose conditions when it is acting in a private capacity.” This language can be found on pages 3 -4 of the AG opinion.
Although the WA Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests (Pacific Northwest Shooting Association v. Sequim), in upholding these conditions under the state firearms preemption clause, the Court has also explained that the conditions “were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.” (Pacific Northwest Shooting Association v. Sequim). Because the rule enacted by the Port of Seattle, prohibiting firearms on the airport applies to the general public, it is possible that a court might find the rule violates the state firearms preemption statute.
We do still have the option of requesting an AG opinion on this matter; however, there may be some reasons not to pursue this avenue. If the AG opinion does find issue with the Port of Seattle’s rule in regard to prohibiting firearms in all areas of the airport it would still likely be a matter to be decided in the courts should a specific case arise. Were you to get a favorable AG opinion and act upon it, you might still find yourself in court.
Asking for an AG opinion on this issue would serve to highlight this gray area and might well come to the attention of the Legislature. In light of the current makeup of Washington’s Legislature, I might be concerned that the likely outcome would be legislation that is unfavorable to your position.
Most advocates of a particular position wait for an ideal test case: one that is likely to result in a ruling in their favor. It is my understanding that the City of Seattle is about to pass a firearm restriction on city park property. It is [only] my personal opinion that it might be better to wait and ask for an AG opinion on a rule such as this, which would not have the same security undertones that a challenge to the Port Authority's rule does have. An opinion and/or court decision regarding the City's rule restricting the right to bear arms in a city park however, might then have ramifications to the Port's constitutional authority to impose such a restriction.
