| Author | Post |
|---|
ducttape2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: ducttape2 wrote: joeroket wrote: Here is an interesting exerpt from the PNSPA vs Sequim supreme court case that is mentioned. I personally think the bold print is the key to this whole thing for us.
By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner. ¶32 The preemption clause does not prohibit a private property owner from imposing conditions on the sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290 . Applying our reasoning in Cherry , it follows that a municipal property owner like a private property owner may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests. For the same reason that a municipal employer may enact policies regarding possession of firearms in the workplace because a private employer may do so, a municipal property owner should be allowed to impose conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a private property owner may impose them. The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
However, it does not address the issue of common use. If you do not enter into contract with the city, then how can they support the claim of use in in a private contract (that is beneficial to the citizens).
Thats what this answers. This basically says that because the laws did not affect the general public due to the contract held between Sequim and PNSPA they did not then fall under pre-emption. But since the EO does affect the general public that they would fall under pre-emption.
The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
Gotcha!
|
uncoolperson
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Bellingham |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
If this gets thrown down, couldn't it being deemed illegal be used for the college ban?
*insert mr. burns "excellent"*
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:43 pm |
|
maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?Last edited on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:48 pm by Bear 45/70
|
XD45PlusP
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
Re: Federal Way City Code Firearms Provisions
Dear Mr. Walls:
We have reviewed the correspondence between the City of Federal Way and our client. Your letter to Mr. Beasley dated February 26, 2008 misstates the state preemption law. Your statement that RCW 9.41.290 “only applies to the regulation of firearms themselves” and “excludes regulations that only secondarily affect firearms… that do not embody a punitive regulation” ignores the broad language of the state preemption statute:
http://markknapp.multiply.com/journal/item/109Last edited on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:53 pm by XD45PlusP
|
uncoolperson
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Bellingham |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:49 pm |
|
"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."
how can something so clearly written (even more clear than the us 2nd!) be so misunderstood?
|
maclean
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:49 pm |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
I'm not going to argue with you Bear, I'm telling you what they are going to say so you can navigate around it and get your comments heard.
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:50 pm |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
|
Mainsail
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
XD45PlusP wrote: Re: Federal Way City Code Firearms Provisions
Dear Mr. Walls:
We have reviewed the correspondence between the City of Federal Way and our client. Your letter to Mr. Beasley dated February 26, 2008 misstates the state preemption law. Your statement that RCW 9.41.290 “only applies to the regulation of firearms themselves” and “excludes regulations that only secondarily affect firearms… that do not embody a punitive regulation” ignores the broad language of the state preemption statute:
http://markknapp.multiply.com/journal/item/109
What does this mean? Who are the players?
|
XD45PlusP
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
Mainsail wrote: XD45PlusP wrote: Re: Federal Way City Code Firearms Provisions
Dear Mr. Walls:
We have reviewed the correspondence between the City of Federal Way and our client. Your letter to Mr. Beasley dated February 26, 2008 misstates the state preemption law. Your statement that RCW 9.41.290 “only applies to the regulation of firearms themselves” and “excludes regulations that only secondarily affect firearms… that do not embody a punitive regulation” ignores the broad language of the state preemption statute:
http://markknapp.multiply.com/journal/item/109
What does this mean? Who are the players? Mainsail I couldn't post the entire thing, please click the link.
|
just_a_car
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
Did anyone catch this 'condition' stated in the actual document found here:
WHEREAS, Seattle's local laws and ordinances relating to firearms are specifically authorized by state law and are consistent with state law;
Is it just me, or does that 'condition' that the Mayor has placed on this order already negate this order? The fact that the city parks has a ban on firearms already violates "consistent with state law" and thus, violates this as a legal order.
Someone with more legal knowledge than I will have to confirm this, but it seems like he may have borked this royally.
IANAL.
|
Gene Beasley
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
XD45PlusP wrote: Mainsail wrote: XD45PlusP wrote: Re: Federal Way City Code Firearms Provisions
Dear Mr. Walls:
We have reviewed the correspondence between the City of Federal Way and our client. Your letter to Mr. Beasley dated February 26, 2008 misstates the state preemption law. Your statement that RCW 9.41.290 “only applies to the regulation of firearms themselves” and “excludes regulations that only secondarily affect firearms… that do not embody a punitive regulation” ignores the broad language of the state preemption statute:
http://markknapp.multiply.com/journal/item/109
What does this mean? Who are the players? Mainsail I couldn't post the entire thing, please click the link.
I am the player and was going to update the Lousy timing on my letter to Federal Way Attorney thread when I had heard something. So it's been two or three weeks since the entire city council heard from my attorney and I don't have anything to report.
I see this news (Seattle) as only bolstering the City of Federal Way's resolve to tell me "FO, we don't have to do anything, if you don't like it - sue us." At least they won't be spending my tax dollars.
Gene Beasley
Last edited on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:26 pm by Gene Beasley
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
Who's looking for legal advise. not me. I have a lawyer better than these political hack available to me. I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less. Shouldn't they be interested in that?
|
deanf
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less.
Exactly. Malfeasance: wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official.
|
maclean
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: joeroket wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
Who's looking for legal advise. not me. I have a lawyer better than these political hack available to me. I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less. Shouldn't they be interested in that?
If you are reporting a crime, report it to the Sheriff, who is the Chief convservator of the peace in King County, within which Seattle resides.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 01:35 am by maclean
|
phiche92
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:55 pm |
|
It's a sad day when elected officials think they have so much power over the citizens that they would even think of something like this. This makes about as much sense as banning licenced drivers from driving on public roads in seattle because some idiot with a drivers license hit a pedestrian and drove off. What a POLICE STATE. these people need to be voted OUT!!
I'm surprised they don't have check points to make sure you have a license, insurance and are employed so you can afford to pay fines. But wait if your an illeagal allien please proceed unemcumberd we dont want to violate your rights that would be politically incorrect.
|
compmanio365
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
phiche92 wrote: It's a sad day when elected officials think they have so much power over the citizens that they would even think of something like this. This makes about as much sense as banning licenced drivers from driving on public roads in seattle because some idiot with a drivers license hit a pedestrian and drove off. What a POLICE STATE. these people need to be voted OUT!!
I'm surprised they don't have check points to make sure you have a license, insurance and are employed so you can afford to pay fines. But wait if your an illeagal allien please proceed unemcumberd we dont want to violate your rights that would be politically incorrect.
By the way, Nickels has said he wants to implement something to stop people from driving on Seattle's streets for some time now.......maybe not for the reasons you've said, but they ARE trying to stop anyone from driving in Seattle.......remove all weapons, remove any semblance of freedom to travel (having to take public transit which you do not control is not free travel...) and you have the workings of a socialist capital in the making.......wake up people, the threat of this is VERY real........
|
blankley
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
What a POLICE STATE. these people need to be voted OUT!!
Well, here come the cameras: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366354_cameras10.html Police state doesn't sound that far fetched.
|
phiche92
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 12:20 am |
|
| Maybe we should all E-Mail the governor, oh wait I just had another brain fart she lost the election twice but still has the office. I guess this won't work either
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 01:40 am |
|
maclean wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: joeroket wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
Who's looking for legal advise. not me. I have a lawyer better than these political hack available to me. I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less. Shouldn't they be interested in that?
If you are reporting a crime, report it to the Sheriff, who is the Chief convservator of the peace in King County, within which Seattle resides.
Ah, but the AG is the head law enforcement guy in the state. I've found going to the top always works best.
|
Right Wing Wacko
Activist Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:00 am |
|
The last time the Democrats did a full court press like this it cost them dearly! They lost the Federal House, Senate, and lost big even here in WA.
One can only hope history repeats itself
|
Current time is 06:02 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
