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

[joeroket]

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?

Ok so after digging a little more I found two definitions from the RCW's that pertain to subdivisions. One is a "political subdivision" and the other is just "subdivision". Granted these are not in 9.41 but it does show a definition by the state.

"Political subdivision" means any political subdivision, or instrumentality of one or more such subdivisions, or proprietary enterprise acquired, purchased or originated by one or more such subdivisions after December, 1950, which employs members of the state employees' retirement system. The state, its agencies, instrumentalities and institutions of higher learning shall be grouped and considered as a single political subdivision.

"Subdivision" means any governmental unit or special district of a state.

One would include state agensices the other would not. It would all be up to the intent of the word as used in the severibility you quoted from 9.41.010.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

almost 3 years ago Joeroket said this,,,,,
They cannot restrict you from carrying in their office as it does not fall under any restricted place in the RCW's. I would let him know that you found out it is legal for you to carry there and give him a pamphlet. I would not record it unless he agrees, which I do not see him doing because he will be acting under his official capacity. this from the L&I thread...

have you learned more,,, changed your mind,,, OR have the laws about state preemption changed?

I think alot of people are trying too hard to find a way to parse words or phrases to cast doubt on the validity of 9.41.290.

Unless you are just looking to argue, I have to wonder why anyone would want to bolster these idiotic anti carry signs..

And the argument, that "The State Cant Preempt It Self" has got to be the Stupidest anti rights phrase Ive ever heard!

 

[joeroket]

almost 3 years ago Joeroket said this,,,,,
They cannot restrict you from carrying in their office as it does not fall under any restricted place in the RCW's. I would let him know that you found out it is legal for you to carry there and give him a pamphlet. I would not record it unless he agrees, which I do not see him doing because he will be acting under his official capacity. this from the L&I thread...

have you learned more,,, changed your mind,,, OR have the laws about state preemption changed?

I think alot of people are trying too hard to find a way to parse words or phrases to cast doubt on the validity of 9.41.290.

Unless you are just looking to argue, I have to wonder why anyone would want to bolster these idiotic anti carry signs..

And the argument, that "The State Cant Preempt It Self" has got to be the Stupidest anti rights phrase Ive ever heard!

Sounds to me like you are the one trying to argue. Bringing up a three year old thread??? Seriously?? You have never changed your mind on topics? Please bring something useful or stay out.

 

[rcw_violations]

Here's something that's a little odd. If you compare the signs that the Department of Licensing (Driver License office) and ESD (Employment Security Department) are using, they look exactly the same. Does anyone know who it is within the state government that is providing illegal signs to multiple state agencies?

Department of Licensing

ESD

 

[tombrewster421]

Here's something that's a little odd. If you compare the signs that the Department of Licensing (Driver License office) and ESD (Employment Security Department) are using, they look exactly the same. Does anyone know who it is within the state government that is providing illegal signs to multiple state agencies?

Department of Licensing

ESD

That's weird. I've OC'd in the DOL in Parkland that is connected to the state patrol with no problem.

 

[jbone]

To me it looks like they found a RCW that lacks reference to either/or .050, .070, 073, 290, 300. Took the ball and ran with it as if .270 were the establishing authority that holds precedence over all others chapter 9 RCW's, in order to ban carry. They most likely know it's legal to carry, but happily use .270 as a bogus loophole due to its lack of reference . Phone Guy Mentioned SAF is contacting him, hopefully they can help.

 

[amlevin]

Here's something that's a little odd. If you compare the signs that the Department of Licensing (Driver License office) and ESD (Employment Security Department) are using, they look exactly the same. Does anyone know who it is within the state government that is providing illegal signs to multiple state agencies?

Probably the State Printing Office. It's most likely a "stock item" which various departments can order.

 

[amzbrady]

To me it looks like they found a RCW that lacks reference to either/or .050, .070, 073, 290, 300. Took the ball and ran with it as if .270 were the establishing authority that holds precedence over all others chapter 9 RCW's, in order to ban carry. They most likely know it's legal to carry, but happily use .270 as a bogus loophole due to its lack of reference . Phone Guy Mentioned SAF is contacting him, hopefully they can help.

Might check to see if they are renting the building. The Kennewick office says they are Renting their building from Goodwill, so it is private property and they can mandate no firearms.

 

[jbone]

Might check to see if they are renting the building. The Kennewick office says they are Renting their building from Goodwill, so it is private property and they can mandate no firearms.

I did some unofficial checking and found "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"

I would think even if WS rented or leased the space from the city , it's still a State office in a tax payer funded, public building.

 

[Stretch]

Might check to see if they are renting the building. The Kennewick office says they are Renting their building from Goodwill, so it is private property and they can mandate no firearms.

I am not sure how that one would fly. If that were the case, any publicly owned venue like Toyota Center in Kennewick (owned by City of Kennewick) would be open to OC. Right?

 

[MadHatter66]

I am not sure how that one would fly. If that were the case, any publicly owned venue like Toyota Center in Kennewick (owned by City of Kennewick) would be open to OC. Right?

Technically and legally can you? Kind of... Now they get around preemption by bringing in a private management company, in this case VenuWorks for the Toyota Center. Because they are a private business, they get away with not allowing weapons (firearms) into the venue. For more on this they refer to Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequim, 158 Wash.2d 342 (2006) (View attachment Pacific-Northwest-Shooting-Park-v-Sequim.pdf). See the quote below for the basic info...

[a] municipality acts in a proprietary capacity when it acts as the proprietor of a business enterprise for the private advantage of the municipality and it may exercise its business powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation.

Weapons Prohibited: Guests, including law enforcement personnel not present in official capacity, are prohibited from bringing weapons into the Center. The Toyota Center does not provide weapon lockers. Weapons may NOT be checked in at Guest Services. Weapons include, but are not limited to, the following: firearms, explosives, stun guns, handcuffs, brass knuckles, sticks, clubs, batons, martial arts instruments, pepper spray, tear gas, knives, etc. Guests found in possession with the above-mentioned items will be asked to remove the item/items from the Center or dispose of it. Guests who refuse to comply will be ejected from the Center without a refund or compensation and may be subject to arrest by the Kennewick Police Department (KPD).

Just mere possession of a firearm would be like a private business asking you to leave. They even state that they will first ask you to relieve yourself of the weapon. I would guess take your firearm out to the car... If you refuse, then their policy threatens you with arrest. They cannot claim 7.108.105 as it doesn't apply because it is for concerts as they are not outdoor music festivals.

If an unauthorized item is found, the guest will be given the option to dispose of the item before entry or take it back to their vehicle. If the item is of an illegal nature, Kennewick Police will be brought in for investigation. This type of search is designed to be done as quickly and effectively as possible so as not to slow down the ingress of the crowd. Unless the guest is asked to open their handbag or coat, the majority of guests do not realize they have been searched. Unauthorized items include, but are not limited to cans, bottles, alcohol, coolers, video cameras, food and beverages.

The interesting one here, is if they would bring them in just for mere possession of a firearm or would they just ask you to take it back to the car. I am speculating heavily here, but I would venture a guess that Kennewick PD would be called in and they would try to detain you until they arrived to sort it out so the management company wouldn't be liable for giving bad info, or violating someones rights (like KPD isn't going to in some way when they get there). But again, that is speculation on my part though.

 

[jddssc121]

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.

I did.

I even linked to info that contained legal analysis from a legislative assistant working for a State House of Representatives member.

I'm not saying there is a specific WAC that does prohibit them in the Work Source buildings; I haven't bothered to look. I was addressing the marco level question regarding premeption and 9.41.290.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

[BigDave]

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?

I just got off the phone with John Gower which is an attorney for legislatures in Olympia in reference to this issue, I had hoped this would apply today but it only applied at that point where the bill was introduced and passed but does not apply to laws made from beyond that point in time.

 

[deanf]

attorney for legislatures

You mean "legislators", ie: individual representatives serving in the House or Senate?

"Legislatures" would be multiples of the bodies, ie: the Washington House and Senate would be "legislatures", the plural of "legislature."

One man serving in the House or Senate is a "legislator" not a "legislature." The whole body, made up of all the members, is the "legislature."

 

[BigDave]

daenf, smilpy amzaing to waht etxent yuo wlil go to! Do yuo wnat to byu a vwoel?

 

[deanf]

My only concern is that your message about our cause will have a reduced credibility due to your errors.

 

[BigDave]

Don't worry deanf, not everyone walks around with a corn cob shoved up their yooho!

 

[amlevin]

Don't worry deanf, not everyone walks around with a corn cob shoved up their yooho!

I don't know Dave, there are some parts of our State where people walk around with some really strange smiles on their faces. Maybe this is why?

 

[BigDave]

I don't know Dave, there are some parts of our State where people walk around with some really strange smiles on their faces. Maybe this is why?

dean that smirk is quite revealing!

 

[Alodoxx]

My experience might help in this discussion:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...enter-no-weapons-policy&p=1379084#post1379084

Within the last 2 months (10/2010) I attended a Employment Security Department seminar on workplace safety at a state WorkSource Center. No, I won't say which one. Not that it matters since this training is being conducted at all WorkSource Centers in WA. The topic came up regarding the no weapons policy that's written on a warning notice on all external doors. Some guy at the meeting asked the instructor about open carry and how that affects the WorkSource Center. The instructor replied that they won't allow any guns, period. He made it clear by his response that this is just the way it is and that the inquiry was over.

The worker persisted in his questioning and what happened next may be of interest to you. I wrote down the instructors response as best I could.

The worker tried to point out that according to the article he read, the restrictions on OC only applies to a jail & ... : that's when the instructor cut him off. He said the policy is this, no matter what the Employment Security Department won't allow guns OC or CC on the premises. He said that TPTB know it may not be legal but will take the chance of getting sued rather than allow guns in their buildings. His comment made it clear that they don't care about following the law. The instructor then said that no one inside of a WorkSouce building can ever tolerate any weapon. He then gave the example of what we should do if someone walked in with a gun showing (or CC); call the police on sight. This is official policy.

In the booklet we were given there was this:

RCW 9.41.270
Prohibited: weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm - unlawful carrying or handling - penalty - exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests in intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

This is all I have to share.