Saw This in WWU Western Front

[Difdi]

The RCW does not reserve the entire field of firearms regulation to ONLY the legislature. You are correct, only the legislature can enact statutes with criminal penalties. However, the way I read RCW 9.41.290 is that if a state agency chose to prohibit firearms in facilities under the control of that agency, they could do so. But it would not be a criminal act to possess a firearm in those state controlled facilities.

Not without a constitutional amendment or an alteration to the specified list of places in the statute where firearms are prohibited (and the prohibitions in the statute get a bit iffy if you find yourself needing to engage in self-defense in an area where firearms are banned by statute).

The state constitution places limits on what the state can do. The way the state constitution phrases it, it's arguable that even a convicted felon has a right to keep and bear arms.

 

[hermannr]

Would you care to explain, then, how the state agency that licenses day care centers (not sure if it is DOL or another agency) forces day care centers to prohibit firearms in order to obtain a day care license?

Would you care to explain, then, how the state universities prohibit firearms on their campuses?

All of these prohibitions are in WAC - Washington Administrative Code.

They do it because they are not/have not been/challanged in court.

Just like in Oregon. The Oregon state university system did the same thing...when it finally was challenged in court, the University system lost. The Oregon state Supreme Court said that the University board could not formulate a rule (same as a WAC) that was in direct conflict with the state constitution and state law.

And Oh yes, the state of Colorado did the same, court results were the same.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It would be interesting to see that in court in Washington.

If we can Sanders back on the bench.

Although I don't believe the state can preempt itself they would have to follow their own state law in my opinion, otherwise the law means nothing.

 

[gogodawgs]

If we can Sanders back on the bench.

Although I don't believe the state can preempt itself they would have to follow their own state law in my opinion, otherwise the law means nothing.

They do it because they are not/have not been/challanged in court.

Just like in Oregon. The Oregon state university system did the same thing...when it finally was challenged in court, the University system lost. The Oregon state Supreme Court said that the University board could not formulate a rule (same as a WAC) that was in direct conflict with the state constitution and state law.

And Oh yes, the state of Colorado did the same, court results were the same.

It would be interesting to see that in court in Washington.

Yes it will be interesting to see it make it's way in our court. I think a primary question is who write's the WAC and did the legislature give them the intent to codify these rules limiting a Constitutional right. It certainly would not pass strict scrutiny and I sincerely doubt it would even pass intermediate scrutiny.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yes it will be interesting to see it make it's way in our court. I think a primary question is who write's the WAC and did the legislature give them the intent to codify these rules limiting a Constitutional right. It certainly would not pass strict scrutiny and I sincerely doubt it would even pass intermediate scrutiny.

That's the problem with many of these things someone has to be the test case, often times that means being temporarily labeled a law breaker. And most folks just cant afford the bother.

 

[deanf]

That's the problem with many of these things someone has to be the test case, often times that means being temporarily labeled a law breaker.

I don't think so (about someone being a test case). For heaven's sake, we have people who sue on behalf of animals, and are granted standing. We have environmental groups who sue without ever having been damaged, and are granted standing.

Any group could sue over any of these WACs that violate the constitution, and they would probably be granted standing. This is where I think the other WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) really falls down . . .

 

[Difdi]

Would you care to explain, then, how the state agency that licenses day care centers (not sure if it is DOL or another agency) forces day care centers to prohibit firearms in order to obtain a day care license?

Would you care to explain, then, how the state universities prohibit firearms on their campuses?

All of these prohibitions are in WAC - Washington Administrative Code.

If nobody ever broke the law, nobody would ever have invented police.

As for the WAC, I doubt it's constitutional. The state constitution has a far stronger protection than the U.S. one when it comes to bearing arms.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

[/COLOR]

I don't think so (about someone being a test case). For heaven's sake, we have people who sue on behalf of animals, and are granted standing. We have environmental groups who sue without ever having been damaged, and are granted standing.

Any group could sue over any of these WACs that violate the constitution, and they would probably be granted standing. This is where I think the other WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) really falls down . . .

That's a good point. I guess I was just thinking about Heller and McDonald and many of the other cases that are ruled usually because someone is arrested for it and fights it. (What ever law or procedure that is unconstitutional).

 

[k.rollin]

Back when I was still the Campus Leader for SCC at WWU, I asked Lammo what his opinions were with regard to challenging the policies of WWU and other public post-secondary institutions based on state preemption. The summary of what I heard from him was that I'd be better off trying to amend the WAC through the WWU Board of Trustees or working to amend the RCW, either by way of something similar to Pam Roach's 2008 Campus Protection Act (SB6860) or amending RCW 9.41.300 to provide an exemption for universities/colleges similar to this:

(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060

This is because WWU is allowed to enact student conduct codes under RCW 28B.35.120 (12), under which the University board of trustees "May promulgate such rules and regulations, and perform all other acts not forbidden by law, as the board of trustees may in its discretion deem necessary or appropriate to the administration of the regional university."

Of course, WAC 516.21.010 says that "Western Washington University students enjoy the same basic rights, privileges, and freedoms granted to all members of society." Apparently, the basic right defend one's self is an exception to that statement.