Obviously, if they aren't controlling access with armed guards and metal detectors, then banning CCWs is completely absurd and should be contested.

I don't find a rule banning open carry of unloaded (and therefore useless except for their intended purpose) long guns in a .gov building to be absurd or something that needs to be codified at a level above a building rule.

The problem arises when you start expanding the issue.

So let's say that it's not a big deal if we can't carry in the Senate observation gallery. Then they say you can't carry in the Capitol building at all. Then Seattle makes the same rule for city buildings . . . and then city parks . . . etc. It goes on and on. That's why we have a state pre-emption law, to avoid this type of scenario.

Otherwise, you wind up with a patchwork of carry laws across the state. You leave your house in Puyallup, where you can carry, with your Glock 17. You drive through Renton, who only allows 10-round mags, and you're an instant felon. You keep driving through Bellevue, where you can't carry at all, and at this point you're in seriously deep shit. See what I mean?

We can't have individual areas making up their own rules.

I don't think municipalities is the same thing as a building or areas of a building and the state preemption would clearly apply in that case.

It's a slippery slope....

All this going on while a Congressman from North Carolina is introducing a Bill for some Concealed Carry reciprocity among states.

I think the only option is to turn the viewing gallery into a bar.

They get a ‘safe space’ without firearms. We get more citizen participation because, well, it’s a bar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That.....actually....makes...sense.

No need for urinals, just lean up against the rail.

Maybe Frankie's could open a second location?

I'll be surprised if Frankie's only location lasts much longer.