| Author | Post |
|---|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue May 12th, 2009 02:43 am |
|
kyle.huff wrote: I have one to add to this list for Longview Washington -
They are taking the stance against open-carry as a violation of RCW 9.41.270. ... [snip]
I think this issue falls outside the scope of why this list was created. Each of the entries here was codified violation of state preemption. This recent rash of using a loose interpretation of 9.41.270 as a means to interfere with OC seems to me to be something better addressed with the agencies as it has been in the past. This has, for the most part, involved members like Gray Peterson or sv_libertarian working toward getting a training bulletin put in place. I know there are others, but this is just from the top of my head.
|
Jered
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 12th, 2009 06:12 am |
|
I'm going to try contacting Pierce County Parks and Recreation tomorrow.
|
kyle.huff
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 02:40 am |
|
Ok, I see that now Gene. My mistake. Do you know, is there already a place that we are documenting cities/towns that are using this loose interpretation of 9.41.270? (and more importantly, tracking the progress of any action to change it and finally a reversal)
It may possibly be of value to others who work/play/travel to those areas or want to get involved (in a coordinated fashion) to address the issue.
|
BigDave
Opt-Out Member
|
Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 07:33 am |
|
I do not know if this is going on in other cities but here in Yakima at the Work Source Office they have posted signs prohibiting firearms as well.
http://www.packing4life.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=403&stc=1&d=1238776213
I had written an email to Work Source and was passed up to Risk Management Program Administrator from the Employment Security Department and just tried to give me the run around until I contacted an attorney and then it was shipped up to the Attorney General Office.
Still waiting a response.
Dave
|
jddssc121
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu May 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 166 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
Algona Fixed their code (it dealt with parks 9.24.160)
It was passed on Feb 17th. Code is now correct and does not restrict firearms in parks
http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=138436778&infobase=algona42.nfo&jump=9.24.160&softpage=PL_frame#JUMPDEST_9.24.160
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 11:13 pm |
|
| Whatcom County code is just about fixed. I just got off the phone with Sam Crawford, the Councilman who has been herding the issue thru the legal process and he reports he now has a draft that the attorneys are comfortable with. (Sorry for the preposition.) Tentative date for the full hearing at the County Council is July 21; I believe I heard him say it will be formally introduced July 7. So they're doing things the right way, and I fully expect resolution at the meeting.
|
BigDave
Opt-Out Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 03:55 pm |
|
Well I have setup an appointment with the Police Chief of Yakima for next week to discuss the issue of city ordinances that violate Washington State Law, in which they are required to uphold.
I choose this approach in hopes to gain his support and will be approaching the City Attorney along with the Council in the near future.
I have been considering on my approach to this meeting and so far came to a conclusion that I will start off talking to him about how this effects me as I take my dog for walks in the parks and I am disabled so it is a concern of mine of my safety as to gang activity in Yakima is so evident and on going.
I have seen the signs in the parks prohibiting firearms except for law enforcement and was surprised to see it as Washington State Preempts the entire realm of firearms and prohibits cities, towns and counties from enacting laws more restrictive then the State.
It has always been very important to me to be legal in what ever I do. I am a responsible gun owner, licensed, trained and carry daily, I make it a point to keep up on current laws when it come to firearms.
The city ordinances in question thus places me in peril of being arrested or cited here in Yakima for exercising my rights under our State Constitution and State Law. If it ever reached court it would be thrown out do to State Preemption.
I am looking to the Police Chief as to his position on this and if he would consider sending out a bulletin to his department about not being able to enforce these ordinances.
I feel this was put in place for just another feel good law, but we all know gangbangers will carry anyways.
The liberals like those feel good laws, so to appease them to some degree I would offer An option having the city council to amend the ordinances to read in the exemptions " or otherwise provided by law".
I am also preparing reference material to take with me so if he wishes copies they are readily available.
Washington State Constitution
RCW-State Preemption and Weapons prohibited in certain places...
Washington Attorney General Opinion
Governors Emergency Powers.Last edited on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 04:01 pm by BigDave
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 05:10 pm |
|
BigDave wrote: Well I have setup an appointment with the Police Chief of Yakima for next week to discuss the issue of city ordinances that violate Washington State Law, in which they are required to uphold.
I choose this approach in hopes to gain his support and will be approaching the City Attorney along with the Council in the near future.
I have been considering on my approach to this meeting and so far came to a conclusion that I will start off talking to him about how this effects me as I take my dog for walks in the parks and I am disabled so it is a concern of mine of my safety as to gang activity in Yakima is so evident and on going.
I have seen the signs in the parks prohibiting firearms except for law enforcement and was surprised to see it as Washington State Preempts the entire realm of firearms and prohibits cities, towns and counties from enacting laws more restrictive then the State.
It has always been very important to me to be legal in what ever I do. I am a responsible gun owner, licensed, trained and carry daily, I make it a point to keep up on current laws when it come to firearms.
The city ordinances in question thus places me in peril of being arrested or cited here in Yakima for exercising my rights under our State Constitution and State Law. If it ever reached court it would be thrown out do to State Preemption.
I am looking to the Police Chief as to his position on this and if he would consider sending out a bulletin to his department about not being able to enforce these ordinances.
I feel this was put in place for just another feel good law, but we all know gangbangers will carry anyways.
The liberals like those feel good laws, so to appease them to some degree I would offer An option having the city council to amend the ordinances to read in the exemptions " or otherwise provided by law".
I am also preparing reference material to take with me so if he wishes copies they are readily available.
Washington State Constitution
RCW-State Preemption and Weapons prohibited in certain places...
Washington Attorney General Opinion
Governors Emergency Powers.
Dave:
Your approach is spot-on. I would go light on your personal experience and stick to issues of law and enforcement. Your preparation of reference material is excellent --- I have used the same approach with local officials here. You can be sure they will use them in discussions with others in the bureaucracy, so documentation can only help your case. Also, this fits with the politician's frame of thinking. Try using highlighter to point out the most relevant passages, but do so sparingly. You might preface your documents with a brief cover letter addressed to your contact and marked at the heading "Hand Carried".
Good work.
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 06:17 am |
|
| I agree with Richard. You don't mention it, but just in case, this is an issue of state preemption and not open carry. I don't see any reason to mention OC at this point. Take this one bite at a time. If OC becomes an issue, such as using 9.41.270 as appears to have been done in Clark County, then take that up when this issue (which is pretty straight-forward) should the need arise. Just my .03 (adjusted for inflation)
|
BigDave
Opt-Out Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 02:50 pm |
|
Gene Beasley wrote: I agree with Richard. You don't mention it, but just in case, this is an issue of state preemption and not open carry. I don't see any reason to mention OC at this point. Take this one bite at a time. If OC becomes an issue, such as using 9.41.270 as appears to have been done in Clark County, then take that up when this issue (which is pretty straight-forward) should the need arise. Just my .03 (adjusted for inflation)
Gene I agree with your assessment as well, while I conceal carry, this issue is about legal carry and not how we carry.
If the topic of OC comes up, I will revert to the issue of legal carry and OC is legal.
Last edited on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 02:51 pm by BigDave
|
BigDave
Opt-Out Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
I just returned with a discussion with Chief Granato Yakima Police Department and I must tell you all this was a very good talk with him, he was very receptive and agreed the laws on the books are not enforceable as to State Preemption and if someone was cited it would be thrown out in court at the first appearance.
He is also contacting the City Attorney to prepare a Training Memo on this issue after I advised him about a discussion with one of the Officers.
He drove home the point, one is cited for what one does with a firearm and not because they were carrying one.
After seeing his position on this matter our discussion continued on other aspects of carrying which were all positive.
He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and opposed to a weapons ban as he gets the issue gangs/criminals do not follow the laws, lawful citizens do.
These are not exact quotes from the Chief but to the best of my understanding of his points.
I should have added this includes Yakima 13.16.120 Parks
Yakima 7.04.090 Cemetery and Chapter 6.06 Emergency Powers of Mayor, City Council and City Manager.Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 03:09 am by BigDave
|
Richard6218
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 02:04 am |
|
BigDave wrote: I just returned with a discussion with Chief Granato Yakima Police Department and I must tell you all this was a very good talk with him, he was very receptive and agreed the laws on the books are not enforceable as to State Preemption and if someone was cited it would be thrown out in court at the first appearance.
He is also contacting the City Attorney to prepare a Training Memo on this issue after I advised him about a discussion with one of the Officers.
He drove home the point, one is cited for what one does with a firearm and not because they were carrying one.
After seeing his position on this matter our discussion continued on other aspects of carrying which were all positive.
He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and opposed to a weapons ban as he gets the issue gangs/criminals do not follow the laws, lawful citizens do.
These are not exact quotes from the Chief but to the best of my understanding of his points.
Dave:
+1
|
Guns_N_Fire
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
Hello all..I was looking into Pasco, Kennewick, and Richlands codes on carring of firearms.
Just looking for a little more interpitation on it and if they can be exempt from state law. If it goes against, how we can get it changed.
Pasco
9.24.020 WEAPONS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING BODILY HARM - UNLAWFUL ACTS - PENALTIES - EXCEPTIONS.
(a) It is unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon or imitation of any weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, excepting firearms, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to injure another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons or for the security of their property.
(b) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) above shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
9.24.080 EXEMPTION FROM STATE LAW PROHIBITION AGAINST CARRYING FIREARMS IN OPEN VIEW. The City of Pasco is hereby exempted from the prohibition in subsection 405(4) Chapter 7, Laws 1994 and RCW 9.41.050(4) which prohibits a person from carrying a firearm unless it is unloaded and enclosed in an opaque case or wrapper or the person meets one of the exceptions listed therein. (Ord. 3034, Sec. 1, 1994.)
Richland
9.26.015 Weapons Apparently Capable of Producing Bodily Harm Exhibiting, Displaying or Drawing Unlawful--Exceptions
It shall be unlawful for anyone to exhibit, display or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club or other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner and under circumstances and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
9.26.025 Exemption
The jurisdiction of the City of Richland is and shall be exempt from the prohibitions set forth in subsection (4) of section 9.41.050 of the Revised Code of Washington as presently enacted and as may be hereafter modified or recodified. This exemption is enacted pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington 9.41.050(6). (Ord. 33-94).
Kennewick
The applicant's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied, unless he:
(a) Is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of Section RCW
9.41.040 and KMC 10.12.006;
10.12.010: Carrying Weapons:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to carry, or wear concealed upon his person, or
concealed in any vehicle and readily accessible, a weapon consisting of a knife, the blade of
which is in excess of four inches; or any slingshot, metal knuckles, or any other dangerous
weapon or instrument which may be used to inflict injury upon the person of another
(5) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess
under state or federal law.
10.12.900: Construction - Conflict with State Law: If any portion of this chapter is found to
be in conflict with or more restrictive than state law insofar as it concerns firearms, then it
shall be construed consistently with and in harmony with state law. (Ord. 2943 Sec. 6, 1985)
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:26 pm |
|
Guns_N_Fire,
Some of those codes seem to reference RCW's that might have been revised, but none of those codes, to me, appears to be more restrictive than state law, and are therefore valid.
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:09 pm |
|
NavyLT wrote: Guns_N_Fire,
Some of those codes seem to reference RCW's that might have been revised, but none of those codes, to me, appears to be more restrictive than state law, and are therefore valid.
Guns_N_Fire,
I agree with NavyLT. There's a post in the Deer Park thread that's a few months old that explains how some local codes reference the 1994 version of 9.41.050. You can read it here but in a nutshell, the city was taking the opportunity to exempt themselves from the more restrictive carry laws enacted by the state in 1994 - the cities/counties in these cases had more lax gun laws than the state.
As far as Tri-Cities goes, look at the list on the first page. Pasco has two code that haven't been addressed. Richland has two codes that Tawnos made some headway on, and a third that wasn't addressed to my knowledge. West Richland has two code that need work. Benton County has one. For the most part it seems that the Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties have their act together.
|
Guns_N_Fire
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
| copy that sounds good....after awhile i will get use to the political lingo...thanks for the input..
|
don99123
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11th, 2009 01:20 am |
|
I live in Newport in Pend Orielle County and will moving to Medical Lake in Spokane County I am not sure of the laws here or in Medical Lake but I will be obtaining my permit and was curious if anyone knows of the restrictions in these towns?
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11th, 2009 01:34 am |
|
don99123 wrote: I live in Newport in Pend Orielle County and will moving to Medical Lake in Spokane County I am not sure of the laws here or in Medical Lake but I will be obtaining my permit and was curious if anyone knows of the restrictions in these towns?
There can be no restrictions in any towns that are not statewide. They cannot prohibit firearms where firearms are not prohibited by state law. I would suggest you read RCW 9.41 in it's entirety.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41&full=true
|
hydrochloride
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 08:13 am |
|
I was just looking at Metro Parks Tacoma website to find out their policy on OC, and found that their 9.41.270 is stated
9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of
producing bodily harm, carrying,
Tacoma Municipal Code
Should I be concerned about going to the dog park while OCing?
I know that Tacoma Police have received a training bulletin on OC
How can this abbreviated version of 9.41.270 be quoted as law?
Should I OC at the dog park?
|
Gene Beasley
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27th, 2009 10:48 am |
|
hydrochloride wrote: I was just looking at Metro Parks Tacoma website to find out their policy on OC, and found that their 9.41.270 is stated
9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of
producing bodily harm, carrying,
Tacoma Municipal Code
Should I be concerned about going to the dog park while OCing?
I know that Tacoma Police have received a training bulletin on OC
How can this abbreviated version of 9.41.270 be quoted as law?
Should I OC at the dog park?
It would be helpful when referencing something on a web page to include the link to that page. Following the most reasonable route, I can only assume that I made it to the same place you are talking about.
Finding only the reference to TMC 8.27 here, I pulled up that code from City of Tacoma. Since they don't reference an exact code number, I searched for the text you cited. TMC 8.67.010 adopts RCW's by reference. This is, in my opinion, the best way for counties and municipalities to not run afoul of preemption. It doesn't really matter if it's there or not. Tacoma PD would charge you under RCW 9.41.270 if they felt the elements existed, not the adopted by reference code.
'Can I' and 'should I' are questions that only you can answer. I don't know about the training bulletin. When we get them, they you should be able to find them on Northwest Citizen's Defense League downloads.
IANAL
|
Current time is 11:45 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
