Posted: 11/26/2009 3:33:29 PM EDT
|
The State Attourney General addressed, in relation to the Washington State Preemption Law, Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibits possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities?
There is a great link under legal references that has been added to this site which is where I initially got the information......IM NOT SURE ITS clear.......CAN they or NOT do this and does this hold the same when it comes to the county telling you that, as an employee you cannot have firearms on county property though if you were not an employee, and all other laws were followed, you can. If so, Is this discrimination against a group of people based on their employment? source of reference http://case.lawmemo.com/or/doe.htm What say you? |
|
Quoted:
The State Attourney General addressed, in relation to the Washington State Preemption Law, Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibits possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities? There is a great link under legal references that has been added to this site which is where I initially got the information......IM NOT SURE ITS clear.......CAN they or NOT do this and does this hold the same when it comes to the county telling you that, as an employee you cannot have firearms on county property though if you were not an employee, and all other laws were followed, you can. If so, Is this discrimination against a group of people based on their employment? source of reference http://case.lawmemo.com/or/doe.htm What say you? Key words in red.... Yes, they can. You can, of course, demand the same "rights" as a non-employee, and chances are they (the city/county) will comply with your demand....you would then become a non-employee. |
| In reviewing the Oregon court case listed in my initial email it appears this has been adequately challenged......the employee loses. However, All laws applied to carry concealed do not state "unless your employer says otherwise". If this policy is enacted after employment, and without agreement to its post employment application, is it valid to existing employees? Also, is this discrimination based on employment? I am shocked at how prevalent this practice is! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The State Attourney General addressed, in relation to the Washington State Preemption Law, Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibits possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities? There is a great link under legal references that has been added to this site which is where I initially got the information......IM NOT SURE ITS clear.......CAN they or NOT do this and does this hold the same when it comes to the county telling you that, as an employee you cannot have firearms on county property though if you were not an employee, and all other laws were followed, you can. If so, Is this discrimination against a group of people based on their employment? source of reference http://case.lawmemo.com/or/doe.htm What say you? Key words in red.... Yes, they can. You can, of course, demand the same "rights" as a non-employee, and chances are they (the city/county) will comply with your demand....you would then become a non-employee. This would then be false termination with out attempts of implimenting a corrective action plan. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The State Attourney General addressed, in relation to the Washington State Preemption Law, Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibits possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities? There is a great link under legal references that has been added to this site which is where I initially got the information......IM NOT SURE ITS clear.......CAN they or NOT do this and does this hold the same when it comes to the county telling you that, as an employee you cannot have firearms on county property though if you were not an employee, and all other laws were followed, you can. If so, Is this discrimination against a group of people based on their employment? source of reference http://case.lawmemo.com/or/doe.htm What say you? Key words in red.... Yes, they can. You can, of course, demand the same "rights" as a non-employee, and chances are they (the city/county) will comply with your demand....you would then become a non-employee. This would then be false termination with out attempts of implimenting a corrective action plan. actually, this is where you're sadly mistaken. this state is an "at will employment state", which means that you can be terminated for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever & there's not squat you can do about it. the courts have already ruled (I beleive it was cherry v. Seattle) that an employer does have the right to implement certain rules regarding employment & that as a private employer, they can, in fact, restrict your constitutional rights, ie: firearm posession. the problem in seatlle is that in sequim v. NWssa (northwest shooters), the courts ruled that private parties could restrict firearm posession as a condition of the renting/leasing of the property..they further ruled that the city of sequim, when leasing to NWSS was ascting as a private property owner (the same way that the city of seattle can get away with requiring the group who run folklife or the bite of seattle to prohibit firearms as a condition of the lease). the problem is that the asinine outgoing mayor has attempted to twist the ruling of sequim v. NWSS into his favor by saying that the city is simply acting as "landlord" of the property & therefore has the right to prohibit firearms. the problem with this thinking is that if (and I truly doubt they will, but I'll never bet on the way courts will rule) if the city of seattle wins, that will basically mean the end of preemption in this state..and once that happens, other cities and counties will follow suit...then, all you;'ll have is a bunch of criminals (normally law-abiding citizens) illegally carrying firearms in parks...I for one, will not go to a certain park in snohomish county without my firearm, concealed or open carry, due to it's, at times, violent nature. if you ever feel like getting together for a good conversation, I would be more than happy to meet with you for further discussion regarding the laws |
|
Quoted:
actually, this is where you're sadly mistaken. this state is an "at will employment state", which means that you can be terminated for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever & there's not squat you can do about it. Not to be picky.... Ok, so I am being picky... That statement is a little misleading and inaccurate. But the correct way to describe "at will employment state" is that either party can terminate employment WITHOUT reason. There are some scenarios where if the employer were to terminate you with reason, that it could be unlawful (race, gender, marital status etc). That's assuming of course that they employer was stupid enough to give a unlawful reason when they don't have to give any reason at all, or can very easily come up with another one. The catch for employers is that it's in their interest to show that an employee was terminated with cause. If they terminate without cause, it will cost them a lot more in unemployment taxes. If an employee was terminated with cause, the ex-employee will generally not be eligible for unemployment insurance. |
|
Very interesting. I didn't know about the "at-will employment" thing.
So does that mean a company can fire someone for being black, and just make up some other reason for it? Or apparently they don't have to give any reason, and you have no ground to stand on? I had no idea. ETA: Okay, nevermind. ThomasH was posting while I was. That clarifies things a bit. Which one of you is the lawyer, and which one stayed at the Holiday Inn? 
|
|
Quoted:
Very interesting. I didn't know about the "at-will employment" thing. So does that mean a company can fire someone for being black, and just make up some other reason for it? Or apparently they don't have to give any reason, and you have no ground to stand on? I had no idea. ETA: Okay, nevermind. ThomasH was posting while I was. That clarifies things a bit. Which one of you is the lawyer, and which one stayed at the Holiday Inn? Not a lawyer, and I only stay at hotels where I get free booze. 
|
|
Cool, well spread the knowledge, this is interesting stuff.
I once stayed for free, at a place on the beach, down in Panama. Actually, they paid ME to stay there! Nice sandy beach, nice and warm and sunny, got to swimm out in the surf, great time. It was called Ft. Sherman. 
|
|
Quoted:
not a lawyer either, but have an AA in criminal justice AND am a member of opencarry.org....putting on my flame-proof suit now 
edited to correct extremely drunk speeling I have an AA in criminal justice as well....working on bachalors degree...about a year in. This information is for a final project in one of my classes....I need a third person source....that's you guys 
|