| Author | Post |
|---|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 02:50 am |
|
Gene Beasley wrote: I'm about to adress Des Moines. Topic for discussion before I get started:
Des Moines 9.36.040 Council Chambers (meets in municipal court…)
Does anyone have any thoughts on multiple use of courtrooms? The court venue is used for city council meetings and from my memory could be used for any number of non-court related meetings.
My thought is that the .300 does not make a distinction as to whether is is used as something other than a courtroom. Simply that it be used in connection with court proceedings. Since the council chambers are also used in connection with court proceedings then I would have to say that the code that restricts firearms is not pre-empted and is in line with state law.
|
kparker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 895 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 04:10 am |
|
Since the council chambers are also used in connection with court proceedings then I would have to say that the code that restricts firearms is not pre-empted and is in line with state law.
Correct, but then in that case they're required to provide lockboxes or some other storage facility.
|
heresolong
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Blaine, WA |
| Posts: | 850 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 04:20 am |
|
kparker wrote: Since the council chambers are also used in connection with court proceedings then I would have to say that the code that restricts firearms is not pre-empted and is in line with state law.
Correct, but then in that case they're required to provide lockboxes or some other storage facility.
Yeah. We had this argument in Blaine some years ago as I didn't want to have to leave my pistol at home to attend City Council meetings. Eventually they just started having the secretary check firearms.
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 07:43 am |
|
heresolong wrote: kparker wrote: Since the council chambers are also used in connection with court proceedings then I would have to say that the code that restricts firearms is not pre-empted and is in line with state law.
Correct, but then in that case they're required to provide lockboxes or some other storage facility.
Yeah. We had this argument in Blaine some years ago as I didn't want to have to leave my pistol at home to attend City Council meetings. Eventually they just started having the secretary check firearms.
There is one last remaining issue in Ferndale which is that there are still "No Firearms" signs outside the doors of City Hall and the annex building where the Council chambers are. There is no city ordinance supporting these so I am having discussions with the City Administrator to have them removed. Since they have already changed the parks code at my request they may view this as rubbing salt, so I will need to tread lightly. If they really balk I will be willing to let it drop, as I doubt they would enforce it anyway.
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
Richard6218 wrote: I just spoke with Sam Crawford, Whatcom County Councilman, regarding the firearms in parks prohibition (WCC 9.32.085) in response to my letter to him of Jan. 19. He agrees with the point I made and has drafted a resolution to delete the restrictive language. He is running it by Sheriff Bill Elfo and Prosecutor Dan MeEachran as well as the Parks Director and barring any strong reaction from them will submit it to committee. Unless it gets put off because of other priorities it is possible it will come to the full County Council in the meeting of Feb. 24. I have already discussed it with the Sheriff and the Prosecutor and their response was quite positive.
Sooo ..... good for a "green" coding at this point, possibly "blue" by the 24th. 
As Sam Crawford said to me in our discussion yesterday this is a political process more than a legal one, and I just got word of a possible hiccup. Sheriff Elfo's response to Crawford's polling was to favor continuing the prohibition in county parks although he deferred to "legal counsel" for the final opinion. Obviously, he is wrong about this on account of preemption, so the prosecutor's opinion will have to be the key. And who knows about the views of other members of the County Council. This could become a battle. Stay tuned .....
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
I didn't see Renton on the list:
"Section 3. Weapons & Fireworks
Except as otherwise permitted by law, it is unlawful for a person to possess in any
park, any fireworks, firecracker, torpedo, explosive, air gun, sword, knife, bow and
arrow(s), BB gun, paint ball gun, or slingshot. It is unlawful for any person to possess
firearms in any park except as otherwise permitted by law."
http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Living/CS/REC/Park%20Rules.PDF
|
heresolong
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Blaine, WA |
| Posts: | 850 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 10:50 pm |
|
Richard6218 wrote:
As Sam Crawford said to me in our discussion yesterday this is a political process more than a legal one, and I just got word of a possible hiccup. Sheriff Elfo's response to Crawford's polling was to favor continuing the prohibition in county parks although he deferred to "legal counsel" for the final opinion. Obviously, he is wrong about this on account of preemption, so the prosecutor's opinion will have to be the key. And who knows about the views of other members of the County Council. This could become a battle. Stay tuned .....
Dear Sheriff Elfo,
You may remember me from when you were the Chief of Police in Blaine. I had occasion to chat with you about a few different issues.
I am contacting you regarding your stance on the county ordinance regarding the possession of firearms in parks. According to Sam Crawford you are in favor of maintaining a county ban on firearms in Whatcom County parks (WCC 9.32.085). This was reported to me second hand, however, so I am unsure as to the report's accuracy.
As you are probably aware, RCW 9.41.290 establishes state preemption of firearm related laws. The text of the RCW states in part:
"Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law,"
Since there is nowhere in the RCW that authorizes counties to prohibit the possession of firearms in parks the county ordinance to which we are referring is preempted by the state. By keeping this ordinance on the books you are opening the Sheriff's Department and the County up to possible lawsuits for false arrest, false imprisonment, and violations of United States Code 18 USC 242 which makes it a federal crime to deprive a person of their rights under "color of law".
I am asking that you change your stance on this and immediately inform the county council that this law is illegal, that the county is in violation of RCW 9.41.290, and that continued violation of this code is a misdemeanor according to RCW 9.41.810.
If your opinion and remarks have been misconstrued by Councilmember Crawford or the person from whom I received the information I would appreciate hearing your actual opinion on this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you either way.
Thank you for your time.
C******
Blaine, WA
|
heresolong
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Blaine, WA |
| Posts: | 850 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10th, 2009 03:22 pm |
|
"Good to hear from you and I hope things are going well.
Sam and I did exchange email communications on this issue and I indicated that I would defer to the Prosecuting Attorney on issues relating to the burden of proof, affirmative defenses and any conflicts between the Whatcom County Code and the Revised Code of Washington. I specifically indicated that "it makes sense to have a legal review and ensure that the Code is not superceded by the RCW."
The said ordinance is not limited to firearms possession and prohibits certain uses of firearms and conduct involving dangerous weapons other than firearms in County parks. The Code also specifically recognizes the exemptions contained in RCW 9.41.300 and RCW 9.41.070. I take this to mean that under existing law, a person holding a concealed carry license is not prohibited from carrying a firearm in a County Park.
You ask that "I change my stance on this and immediately inform the County Council that this law is illegal [and that] the County is in violation of RCW 9.41.290." My "stance" is that questions relating to this ordinance should be referred to the County Council's legal advisor who is our Prosecuting Attorney. The Council should follow his advice regarding sections, if any, of the ordinance he might determine are superceded by state statute. The Code also proscribes conduct that is not within the purview of firearms preemption language contained in state law. It makes sense to maintain the Code, to the extent that it comports with state law, so as to clearly establish prohibitions in Parks and allow the Parks Department to use it as a basis for publishing and communicating park rules.
Sam and I are both very mindful of the gun owner's rights and I am sure that any legislation he proposes in this regard will balance these rights with public safety needs.
I hope this answers your questions and thank you for providing me an opportunity to respond.
Best Regards,
Sheriff Bill Elfo"
I am following up with him on the "permit holders are allowed" portion.
And here is my followup email:
"Thanks Bill,
I appreciate your quick reply to my question and the clarification that you provided.
One followup question however. You stated that the county code exempted people who were covered under 9.41.300. I agree that it does say that, but it also would appear to prohibit the lawful carry of firearms that are not concealed. WCC9.32.085 states:
9.32.085 Unlawful firearms and/or weapons in parks. A. It is unlawful within a county-owned park for any person to:
1. Display, exhibit or draw any firearm or dangerous weapon; or
2. Leave any firearm or dangerous weapon unattended and unsecured, or exposed to public view; or
This is actually the portion that I am most concerned about. RCW 9.41.270 only prohibits the display of a firearm that is carried in a manner andunder time or circumstances that warrants alarm. The Washington State Supreme Court, in State vs Casad, held that merely carrying a firearm openly did not warrant alarm. Can you comment as to whether it is the policy of the county or of the sheriff's department that the open carry of a firearm properly secured in a holster is illegal under WCC 9.32.085?
Thanks again."
And his answer:
"
Calvin, my interpretation of the Code, in light of case law, is that it does not prohibit the mere open carrying of firearms. I say this with the caveat that I feel it is not prudent to openly carry a firearm in park for a multitude of reasons. Nonetheless, I respect the law and we will administer our agency in light of what the law requires. Council Member Crawford forwarded this matter to the Prosecuting Attorney and I will rely upon whatever advice he provides and endorse any course of action he recommends. I agree that if in fact there is a law that cannot be enforced, it should be amended. Thanks, Bill"
Looks like we are pretty good with Whatcom County, at least pending the attorney's decision.
Last edited on Tue Feb 10th, 2009 07:08 pm by heresolong
|
kyle.huff
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13th, 2009 10:45 pm |
|
I noticed a restriction of firearms in city parks for my city, and would like to get it changed; I have found some good template documents elsewhere on the forum for accomplishing this, however I do not who the documents should be directed to..
Forgive me if that is an ignorant question, I have never attempted to have a city ordinance changed, and I did not notice any advice on the forums..
Also, any advice on the best (most effective) method of delivery? (i.e. Email, Postal Mail)
Thanks in advance
(I forgot, thank you for this list! great work..)
-------------------------------
Beretta 90-Two .40 S&W
Last edited on Fri Feb 13th, 2009 10:48 pm by kyle.huff
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14th, 2009 12:27 am |
|
kyle.huff wrote: I noticed a restriction of firearms in city parks for my city, and would like to get it changed; I have found some good template documents elsewhere on the forum for accomplishing this, however I do not who the documents should be directed to..
Forgive me if that is an ignorant question, I have never attempted to have a city ordinance changed, and I did not notice any advice on the forums..
Also, any advice on the best (most effective) method of delivery? (i.e. Email, Postal Mail)
Thanks in advance
(I forgot, thank you for this list! great work..)
-------------------------------
Beretta 90-Two .40 S&W
I would suggest starting with either the City Manager, or City Attorney, as they have to write whatever the change is to the legislation. Make a phone call, and/or arrange a face-to-face meeting. Be prepared when you go, so he knows exactly what you're asking. If you sell your idea, it may become law. Good luck.
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 04:58 am |
|
| bump - the poor man's sticky
|
badger54
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 07:46 pm |
|
badger54 wrote: Oak Harbor 6.14.070 Parks
The copy of the municipal code in the city library states that a firearm can be carried for the purpose of lawful self defense, but the online version doesn't state this. I have E-mailed the city attorney to get verification.
I have E-mailed the city attorney twice and have not received a response. I am out of Oak Harbor for the next couple of months, but I will stop by their office when I return unless another Oak Harbor member can get this issue resolved sooner.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 801 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 29th, 2009 06:05 pm |
|
badger54 wrote: badger54 wrote: Oak Harbor 6.14.070 Parks
The copy of the municipal code in the city library states that a firearm can be carried for the purpose of lawful self defense, but the online version doesn't state this. I have E-mailed the city attorney to get verification.
I have E-mailed the city attorney twice and have not received a response. I am out of Oak Harbor for the next couple of months, but I will stop by their office when I return unless another Oak Harbor member can get this issue resolved sooner.
You may want to PM "NavyLt" on this forum, he was also working some issue in Oak Harbor and Island County.
|
Izzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 1st, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
The Kittitas City Code has been repealed so that status can be changed.
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 1st, 2009 11:57 pm |
|
Izzle wrote: The Kittitas City Code has been repealed so that status can be changed.
Can you give me any more details on this? Their meeting minutes page is taking forever to load and the county code listed shows a different numbering system. The MRSC page to their code (where I got all of this information) is now a 404 link.
|
Izzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 01:39 am |
|
Gene Beasley wrote: Izzle wrote: The Kittitas City Code has been repealed so that status can be changed.
Can you give me any more details on this? Their meeting minutes page is taking forever to load and the county code listed shows a different numbering system. The MRSC page to their code (where I got all of this information) is now a 404 link.
http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/kittitas/
Click on Ordinances and Resolutions Table on the bottom left then scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see that they repealed both of the ordinances in February.
|
amlevin
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 02:20 am |
|
badger54 wrote:
I have E-mailed the city attorney twice and have not received a response. I am out of Oak Harbor for the next couple of months, but I will stop by their office when I return unless another Oak Harbor member can get this issue resolved sooner.
Perhaps a letter , with a copy to the State AG's office might make it harder for them to ignore you. Someone in the AG's office might read the letter and make a phone call. That could stimulate some action.
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 03:23 pm |
|
amlevin wrote: badger54 wrote:
I have E-mailed the city attorney twice and have not received a response. I am out of Oak Harbor for the next couple of months, but I will stop by their office when I return unless another Oak Harbor member can get this issue resolved sooner.
Perhaps a letter , with a copy to the State AG's office might make it harder for them to ignore you. Someone in the AG's office might read the letter and make a phone call. That could stimulate some action.
Stimulate  Your point may be well made, but your choice of words is most unfortunate 
|
Izzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
It's not one that is on the list but I got an email today from Wenatchee and as of January 22 they have removed their codes concerning firearms and said that they will be changing the online code shortly.
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
Izzle wrote: It's not one that is on the list but I got an email today from Wenatchee and as of January 22 they have removed their codes concerning firearms and said that they will be changing the online code shortly.
I'm not sure what they are changing. They aren't on this list because all of their local code were in line with state preemption. I wonder if this is the easy way to make sure you don't run afoul? I saw many of the newer cities just go for the adoption by reference method.
|
Current time is 11:50 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
