Can WDFW really click their boot heels and take away my gun rights?

[Calvin Rayborn]

Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded  versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Edson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!

She just answers the phone and helps how she can. That was a smart move she made transferring you, I doubt she was correct in telling you that you can't have a self defense weapon loaded. I'm interested to hear what the WDFW policy is regarding packing a self defense weapon?

Oh yeah, I agree. She was polite and let me explain the situation, and hopefully led me  down the right path! I’m not buying the unloaded firearm statement though. Only WAC/RCW I could find was the “unlawful to hunt with loaded firearm in a vehicle.” http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.460

[bigtex]

Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded  versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Edson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!

She just answers the phone and helps how she can. That was a smart move she made transferring you, I doubt she was correct in telling you that you can't have a self defense weapon loaded. I'm interested to hear what the WDFW policy is regarding packing a self defense weapon?

Oh yeah, I agree. She was polite and let me explain the situation, and hopefully led me  down the right path! I’m not buying the unloaded firearm statement though. Only WAC/RCW I could find was the “unlawful to hunt with loaded firearm in a vehicle.” http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.460

Apparently you did not read my earlier post citing a WAC which states you must abide by all posted signs on WDFW lands..

[pianoman9701]

Wait until you get the answer from the higher-up. If he maintains that "no guns' means no guns, go to your state rep. There was  state supreme court ruling in your favor about carrying on public land a few years ago, as a result of (I believe) of certain parks posting no gun signs. Maybe bigtex can comment.

[Henrydog]

A person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area.  RCW 9.41.060(.

Tagging along.  I appreciate Bigtex as LEO chiming in but if you are doing one of the above RCW clearly states you can carry...but my understanding is a  sign trumps a general law...ie like a private business posting no gun.  I don't agree with it, but want to follow along

[Curly]

It wasn't that long ago that we were not allowed to carry handguns for personal protection while archery or muzzle loader hunting.  I believe wdfw was pressured to change those regulations because if a hunter were unable to defend themselves because of the hunting rules prohibited carrying a handgun, wdfw may be liable.

Seems like a case could be made where wdfw could be liable if someone were attacked by a cougar, wolf, tweaker, or whatever while on the subject property and adhering to the law dictated by said sign saying no guns.

[Calvin Rayborn]

Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but 

Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)

It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"

That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.

That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by  a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)

[Calvin Rayborn]

Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.

PS -
You think I’m going to feel guilty over tight budgeting with an outfit that hires the WOLF LADY for a HALF MILLION dollars for “expert” advice?!? 

[bigtex]

Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but 

Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)

It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"

That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.

That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by  a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)

Sorry but you are mistaken in your interpretation. RCW 77.15.230 states it is unlawful to violate a rule of the department on department land.

"Rules" are found in the WAC, not the RCW.

WAC 220-500-030(3) which states you must follow the signs that are posted on department land is the rule that RCW 77.15.230 is talking about!

[Bango skank]

I believe that half million was her annual pay, on a 4 year contract.  Maybe it was 1/4 mil per year.  Either way, she got 2 mil at minimum from wdfw.  And i believe traveling expenses etc too.  Sure is s lot of coin for basically a grade school counselor trying to make the anti hunters and the ranchers share their feelings.  What a gigantic waste this whole wolf operation is.  And what is the benefit?  Nobody (except francine madden and tge as nimal rights litigation groups) stands to gain anything by this.  Its insanity.

[Calvin Rayborn]

Geez man yeah I just read that it’s pushing 2 million as you say!!! Complete lunacy!
https://www.capitalpress.com/state/washington/wdfw-pens-contract-extension-with-wolf-consultant/article_d2742d60-8209-5248-84a4-83d1f799b943.html

[ghosthunter]

RCW 9.41.290


State preemption.


The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality

This is the WA 2 A Golden Egg.
This keeps every city from writing their own laws and Every Agency.


So to answer the OP question . Post title             NO

[Calvin Rayborn]

Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but 

Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)

It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"

That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.

That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by  a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)

Sorry but you are mistaken in your interpretation. RCW 77.15.230 states it is unlawful to violate a rule of the department on department land.

"Rules" are found in the WAC, not the RCW.

WAC 220-500-030(3) which states you must follow the signs that are posted on department land is the rule that RCW 77.15.230 is talking about!

Interesting! So you’re basically saying that WDFW could put up a sign on public land, “NO METHODISTS ALLOWED” and we would have to abide by it...Yup, makes  perfect sense to me...

[bigtex]

Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but 

Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)

It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"

That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.

That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by  a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)

Sorry but you are mistaken in your interpretation. RCW 77.15.230 states it is unlawful to violate a rule of the department on department land.

"Rules" are found in the WAC, not the RCW.

WAC 220-500-030(3) which states you must follow the signs that are posted on department land is the rule that RCW 77.15.230 is talking about!

Interesting! So WDFW can put up a sign on public land, “NO METHODISTS ALLOWED” and we have to abide by it...Yup, makes  perfect sense to me...

Actually yes, but will it fly in court, probably not. It all depends on the issue.

This is how they go about placing signs to deal with local issues. You have certain WDFW areas that are closed outside of daylight hours, closed to the possession of alcohol, closed to the possession of glass bottles, etc. Instead of WDFW having to create rules for all of those local issues and constantly updating them to add/remove areas to the prohibited areas they can fall under the failing to obey signs regulation.

Like I said in my original post, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.

[bigtex]

RCW 9.41.290


State preemption.


The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality

This is the WA 2 A Golden Egg.
This keeps every city from writing their own laws and Every Agency.


So to answer the OP question . Post title             NO

That RCW only applies to "Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities" WDFW isn't a city, town, county, or other municipality.

[ghosthunter]

RCW 9.41.290


State preemption.


The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality

This is the WA 2 A Golden Egg.
This keeps every city from writing their own laws and Every Agency.


So to answer the OP question . Post title             NO

That RCW only applies to "Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities" WDFW isn't a city, town, county, or other municipality.

The Agency tried to say no one could carry a firearm while Archery hunting. That was reversed because they could not restrict the carry of self defense firearms.