Refresher: Can I Carry a Firearm on a College Campus in Washington State?

[hadji]

This approximately 11 minute youtube video is a very good, concise review of the topic by William Kirk with washingtongunlaw.com.
The video explains who can and cannot carry on the various campuses.

hadji

 

[color of law]

WOW, I got to the 2:10 minute mark and stopped. This guy does not know what the hell is going on. This guy paraphrases WAC 478-124-020, but does not point out where the authority to promulgate such regulation.

WAC 478-124-020:

At the bottom of the regulation it tells you where that authority comes from.

RCW 28B.20.130: Powers and duties of regents—General.

Nowhere in RCW 28B.20.130 gives the university the authority to promulgate such a regulation regulating firearms.

Why does he not point this out? Stupid is as stupid does.

This is why these gun groups are not your friend.

 

[rapgood]

WOW, I got to the 2:10 minute mark and stopped. This guy does not know what the hell is going on. This guy paraphrases WAC 478-124-020, but does not point out where the authority to promulgate such regulation.

WAC 478-124-020:

At the bottom of the regulation it tells you where that authority comes from.

RCW 28B.20.130: Powers and duties of regents—General.

Nowhere in RCW 28B.20.130 gives the university the authority to promulgate such a regulation regulating firearms.

Why does he not point this out? Stupid is as stupid does.

This is why these gun groups are not your friend.

According to Washington Administrative Code 478-124-020(e) possession of firearms is prohibited at colleges and universities, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the university chief of police, or any other person designated by the president of the university. WACs are promulgated pursuant to authorization in the RCWs. There is absolutely no requirement for the enabling RCW to provide detail that is later promulgated in the WACs.
The authority for regulation of firearms on university property is inherent with the Board of Regents [RCW 28B.20.130(1)] who may then delegate that authority to the university President [RCW 28B.20.130(2)], who may then delegate it to anyone (s)he wishes.

 

[color of law]

According to Washington Administrative Code 478-124-020(e) possession of firearms is prohibited at colleges and universities, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the university chief of police, or any other person designated by the president of the university. WACs are promulgated pursuant to authorization in the RCWs. There is absolutely no requirement for the enabling RCW to provide detail that is later promulgated in the WACs.
The authority for regulation of firearms on university property is inherent with the Board of Regents [RCW 28B.20.130(1)] who may then delegate that authority to the university President [RCW 28B.20.130(2)], who may then delegate it to anyone (s)he wishes.

RCW 28B.20.130
Powers and duties of regents—General.
General powers and duties of the board of regents are as follows:
(1) To have full control of the university and its property of various kinds, except as otherwise provided by law.

So, what law allows the board of regents to violate peoples rights?

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Article I, Section 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Article I, Section 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Since the board of regents is an extension of the state, the Constitution of Washington applies to them. The board of regents has a duty under their oath to protect and maintain the individual citizen's right to bear arms.

 

[hadji]

The video accomplishes its intended purpose.
I find myself, in various capacities, on most of the campuses in the course of a year.
It is convenient to have all of the relevant codes in place for a cursory review.

I found it a valuable overview.
hadji

 

[color of law]

The video accomplishes its intended purpose.
I find myself, in various capacities, on most of the campuses in the course of a year.
It is convenient to have all of the relevant codes in place for a cursory review.

I found it a valuable overview.
hadji

Is the intended purpose to mislead?

I suggest you read University of Washington v. City of Seattle, Wash: Supreme Court 2017.

University of Washington v. City of Seattle, Wash: Supreme Court 2017 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

RCW 9.41.290 does not give the board of regents authority to regulate firearms.

Please show me where I'm wrong.

 

[hadji]

I propose a test.
U of W does not allow firearms at all.

Next time I have to visit the University of Washington, I will invite you to go along with me during my activities on campus.
You will be welcome to open carry, in defiance of the WAC, and you will be free to explain to any enforcement officer, whether federal, state, local or campus, that the WAC is invalid, using whichever theory suits you at the moment.

I will not be carrying on that campus.

By dinner time, we will see who is in jail, and who is not...

hadji

 

[color of law]

I propose a test.
U of W does not allow firearms at all.

Next time I have to visit the University of Washington, I will invite you to go along with me during my activities on campus.
You will be welcome to open carry, in defiance of the WAC, and you will be free to explain to any enforcement officer, whether federal, state, local or campus, that the WAC is invalid, using whichever theory suits you at the moment.

I will not be carrying on that campus.

By dinner time, we will see who is in jail, and who is not...

hadji

Based on all your experience I find your offer amateurish.

Retired Federal Way LE suing Tacoma Dome for not allowing him in w/firearm

Retired Federal Way Police Officer Xxxx Xxxxxx decided to try an experiment before the Iron Maiden concert at the Tacoma Dome earlier this month to see if the stadium’s security staff are following the law. LEOSA signed into law by President George W. Bush, allows current and retired law...

forum.opencarry.org

You have been on this forum for 9 years and have not learned anything. This forum contains a complete roadmap on how to handle these types of situations on colleges campuses. Your woe is me video accomplishes nothing. And it is obvious washingtongunlaw.com lacks the ability to solve the violation of rights they so much complain about.

 

[hadji]

Based on all your experience I find your offer amateurish.

Retired Federal Way LE suing Tacoma Dome for not allowing him in w/firearm

Retired Federal Way Police Officer Xxxx Xxxxxx decided to try an experiment before the Iron Maiden concert at the Tacoma Dome earlier this month to see if the stadium’s security staff are following the law. LEOSA signed into law by President George W. Bush, allows current and retired law...

forum.opencarry.org

You have been on this forum for 9 years and have not learned anything. This forum contains a complete roadmap on how to handle these types of situations on colleges campuses. Your woe is me video accomplishes nothing. And it is obvious washingtongunlaw.com lacks the ability to solve the violation of rights they so much complain about.

Amateurish? Naw... its just that while I am on campus, I represent the company I am working for.
And I do not want to be a 'test case' while in that role.

I am surprised to learn, in your ad hominem attack, that I "have not learned anything" in the last nine years.
If that is true, then I must have learned to "choose your battles" before enrolling in this site.

Peace.
We are on the same side.

hadji

 

[color of law]

Amateurish? Naw... its just that while I am on campus, I represent the company I am working for.
And I do not want to be a 'test case' while in that role.

I am surprised to learn, in your ad hominem attack, that I "have not learned anything" in the last nine years.
If that is true, then I must have learned to "choose your battles" before enrolling in this site.

Peace.
We are on the same side.

hadji

Wow, your excuse is that when you are on campus it is in your official capacity as a representative of the company you work. Poor excuse, and a lame one at that.
"[L]earned to 'choose your battles"'? Your implication is the only way to challenge the law is to willy-nilly walk onto campus and get arrested. That idea proves your ignorance in dealing with such matters and your unwillingness to learn.

Have a nice day.

 

[hadji]

Color: I have to admit that I am very surprised by the venom that is coming across in your posts.
I have never had a problem with you in the past.

Maybe your point of view is different than mine because you did not watch the entire 11 minutes?
And, perhaps, we wanted different information from the video?

hadji

 

[color of law]

Color: I have to admit that I am very surprised by the venom that is coming across in your posts.
I have never had a problem with you in the past.

Maybe your point of view is different than mine because you did not watch the entire 11 minutes?
And, perhaps, we wanted different information from the video?

hadji

Not venomous at all. I'm trying to point out to you that William K. Kirk, attorney at law, is selling you a pig in a poke. Everything he said is true, but he chose to not address the statute itself. In other words he doesn't tell you how the law supports the administrative code. Why? Because it doesn't. And because it doesn't he would have to take a lot more time to explain. That does not put money in his pocket.

I pointed you directly to a state supreme court case involving University of Washington that very clearly explained the statute. Did you read it? I bet not. Because if you did, you would have immediately discovered a problem with the administrative code.

The attorney offered you nothing of value. The Emperor has no clothes. It is just an advertising puff piece.

 

[hadji]

"Not venomous at all. I'm trying to point out to you that William K. Kirk, attorney at law, is selling you a pig in a poke.
Everything he said is true, but he chose to not address the statute itself."

The title of the video is: "Can I Carry a Firearm on a College Campus in Washington State?"
I watched it for review of the "rules" at the various locations.

The author clearly states the relevant WAC/RCW that applies to that individual campus,
offers an interpretation noting the various exceptions,
and moves to the next campus.
Clear and concise.

For my purpose, I do not care about the basis of the "rule" right now.
I am way more concerned about being arrested.

"In other words he doesn't tell you how the law supports the administrative code.
Why? Because it doesn't."

I do not care.

"I pointed you directly to a state supreme court case involving University of Washington that very clearly explained the statute. Did you read it? I bet not."

Why so negative? Of course I read it, since you seemed to think it relevant to this discussion.


Because if you did, you would have immediately discovered a problem with the administrative code.

Not my problem for right now.

The attorney offered you nothing of value. The Emperor has no clothes. It is just an advertising puff piece.

Oh, that is a little harsh.
He verified which campus a non-student can carry a firearm.
And which campus that you cannot even have a firearm in the locked car, in the college park lot.
I could not quite remember.

 

[color of law]

"Not venomous at all. I'm trying to point out to you that William K. Kirk, attorney at law, is selling you a pig in a poke.
Everything he said is true, but he chose to not address the statute itself."

The title of the video is: "Can I Carry a Firearm on a College Campus in Washington State?"
I watched it for review of the "rules" at the various locations.

The author clearly states the relevant WAC/RCW that applies to that individual campus,
offers an interpretation noting the various exceptions,
and moves to the next campus.
Clear and concise.

For my purpose, I do not care about the basis of the "rule" right now.
I am way more concerned about being arrested.

"In other words he doesn't tell you how the law supports the administrative code.
Why? Because it doesn't."

I do not care.

"I pointed you directly to a state supreme court case involving University of Washington that very clearly explained the statute. Did you read it? I bet not."

Why so negative? Of course I read it, since you seemed to think it relevant to this discussion.


Because if you did, you would have immediately discovered a problem with the administrative code.

Not my problem for right now.

The attorney offered you nothing of value. The Emperor has no clothes. It is just an advertising puff piece.

Oh, that is a little harsh.
He verified which campus a non-student can carry a firearm.
And which campus that you cannot even have a firearm in the locked car, in the college park lot.
I could not quite remember.

So, what you are saying is: I drank the Kool-Aid and I like it. You are free to do that. The problem is you presented it to a group of second amendment supporters as a very good, concise review of firearms laws on College Campuses. And as I said, it is deceiving. This guy is an attorney, he is not being truthful. He is not pointing out the flaws in the administrative code. And that has to be pointed out.

If you are a true second amendment right supporter, you would look at this stuff with a more critical eye. It is not harsh, it is the truth.

Good luck with your endeavors, but this is not the place to sell twaddle.

End of discussion.

 

[solus]

hadji, I am confused why you believe the 11 min video provides guidance on carry on WA campus even when RAPGOOD unequivocally states, "...possession of firearms is prohibited at colleges and universities..."

you are getting into a snit believing a video, attorney notwithstanding, didn't flat out state the statute that RAPGOOD pointed out...

 

[mnrobitaille]

About 2 years ago, I & a family member decided to take the 90 minute drive to Pullman to visit The Bookie inside WSU's Compton Union Building. Before heading up, I called the WSU Police Department & asked about what the regulations were regarding concealed carrying on campus & mentioned I had a valid Washington State CPL. I was told that basically out of sight, out of mind; not to go into residence halls or be armed while attending athletic events.

I still regularly go on the WSU campus as I work in/around Pullman now, & I just keep firearm secured in vehicle while on campus.