| Author | Post |
|---|
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 09:54 pm |
|
Has anyone pointed out to Marysville that the City Hall building is not a gun free zone? Just wanted to save the embarrassment if this has already been addressed with them.
Attached Image (viewed 348 times):
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 10:08 pm |
|
Do they hold court proceedings there? If so, they're technically allowed to make areas that hold those proceedings barred to firearms. Though, they have to follow all the requirements of 9.41.300, also.
|
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1000 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 10:20 pm |
|
Jim675 wrote:
Has anyone pointed out to Marysville that the City Hall building is not a gun free zone? Just wanted to save the embarrassment if this has already been addressed with them.
Obligatory reference..
(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;
(b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 718 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 11:18 pm |
|
Marysville Municipal Court
1015 State Ave.
Marysville, WA 98270
Marysville City Hall
1049 State Avenue
Marysville, WA 98270
From the third bullet point in the green box to the right on the Municipal Court page for Marysville Wa. :
Know where we are located. (Some people erroneously travel to City Hall nearby.)
(emphasis mine.)
City halls are not listed in RCW 9.41.300 as prohibited, ergo the sign is unenforceable. But if you go the the city council page it says that all meetings are held "on the second floor of the city hall/municipal court building" (even though they have different addresses).
HRMmmmmm..............
Know where we are located. (Some people erroneously travel to City Hall nearby.)
|
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
The city hall and courthouse buildings are 200 yards apart. No court rooms at city hall.
Its a pretty clear violation, I was just wondering if anyone else had fired them up yet.
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
Jim675 wrote: The city hall and courthouse buildings are 200 yards apart. No court rooms at city hall.
Its a pretty clear violation, I was just wondering if anyone else had fired them up yet.
Agreed, a pretty clear violation. I'm not aware of anyone talking to them yet, but I'd leave this thread up a day or two to let people respond if they have. Thanks for catching this and being willing to spearhead it if necessary.
|
Nebulis01
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 03:25 am |
|
just_a_car wrote: Jim675 wrote: The city hall and courthouse buildings are 200 yards apart. No court rooms at city hall.
Its a pretty clear violation, I was just wondering if anyone else had fired them up yet.
Agreed, a pretty clear violation. I'm not aware of anyone talking to them yet, but I'd leave this thread up a day or two to let people respond if they have. Thanks for catching this and being willing to spearhead it if necessary.
As a city resident I'll write a letter this weekend if nobody does it by then.
|
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 05:32 am |
|
I hereby yield the honor then Sir...
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
Doesn’t appear they passed any illegal codes for City Hall either. This one should be an easy fix. Their sign sure lacks tons of relevant info to 9.41.300. Propaganda Sign? No wonder so many people we meet on the streets think it illegal, they read and believe far too much propaganda!
http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/marysville/
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
Should I start out with something short and too the piont like this?
To: Marysville Councilmember: Jeff Seibert, City Attorney: Grant Weed, Police Chief: Rick Smith
Subject: CITY HALL POSTING OF NO-FIREARMS SIGN
Ref: RCW 91.41.290
RCW 9.41.300
Dear Sirs,
Currently Marysville City Hall posts a sign banning firearms with the exception of Law Enforcement referencing RCW 9.41.300, see attached picture. I must inform you this posting ill informs the general public as to the true content of RCW 9.41.300 and the rights of citizens in and on public properties. RCW 9.41.290 “State preemption” Cleary does not allow for such illegal regulation.
I trust is this merely an oversight of State Law and this sign will be promptly removed from City Hall and any other public building were signs of this nature are found, and that no person who legally possesses a firearm under State and Federal Law will be removed by employees or by Law Enforcement.
Point of contact:
|
heresolong
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Blaine, WA |
| Posts: | 1003 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 05:47 pm |
|
jbone wrote: Should I start out with something short and too the piont like this?
To: Marysville Councilmember: Jeff Seibert, City Attorney: Grant Weed, Police Chief: Rick Smith
Subject: CITY HALL POSTING OF NO-FIREARMS SIGN
Ref: RCW 91.41.290
RCW 9.41.300
Dear Sirs,
Currently Marysville City Hall posts a sign banning firearms with the exception of Law Enforcement referencing RCW 9.41.300, see attached picture. I must inform you this posting ill informs the general public as to the true content of RCW 9.41.300 and the rights of citizens in and on public properties. RCW 9.41.290 “State preemption” Cleary does not allow for such illegal regulation.
I trust is this merely an oversight of State Law and this sign will be promptly removed from City Hall and any other public building were signs of this nature are found, and that no person who legally possesses a firearm under State and Federal Law will be removed by employees or by Law Enforcement.
Point of contact:
Looks good to me. You might include the text of 9.41.300 so that they don't have to go research it to find out the correct answer.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 05:53 pm |
|
heresolong wrote: jbone wrote: Should I start out with something short and too the piont like this?
To: Marysville Councilmember: Jeff Seibert, City Attorney: Grant Weed, Police Chief: Rick Smith
Subject: CITY HALL POSTING OF NO-FIREARMS SIGN
Ref: RCW 91.41.290
RCW 9.41.300
Dear Sirs,
Currently Marysville City Hall posts a sign banning firearms with the exception of Law Enforcement referencing RCW 9.41.300, see attached picture. I must inform you this posting ill informs the general public as to the true content of RCW 9.41.300 and the rights of citizens in and on public properties. RCW 9.41.290 “State preemption” Cleary does not allow for such illegal regulation.
I trust is this merely an oversight of State Law and this sign will be promptly removed from City Hall and any other public building were signs of this nature are found, and that no person who legally possesses a firearm under State and Federal Law will be removed by employees or by Law Enforcement.
Point of contact:
Looks good to me. You might include the text of 9.41.300 so that they don't have to go research it to find out the correct answer.
On the orginal doc in REF: I hyperliked the RCW's, do you think thatr would work?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 06:35 pm |
|
| Just make the call or email to the city manager - nothing formal - make them reply.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 06:48 pm |
|
They list a "Chief Administrative Officer" is this another name for City Manager?
http://ci.marysville.wa.us/
|
just_a_car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
jbone wrote: Should I start out with something short and too the piont like this?
To: Marysville Councilmember: Jeff Seibert, City Attorney: Grant Weed, Police Chief: Rick Smith
Subject: CITY HALL POSTING OF NO-FIREARMS SIGN
Ref: RCW 91.41.290
RCW 9.41.300
Dear Sirs,
Currently Marysville City Hall posts a sign banning firearms with the exception of Law Enforcement referencing RCW 9.41.300, see attached picture. I must inform you this posting ill-informs the general public as to the true content of RCW 9.41.300 and the rights of citizens in and on public properties. RCW 9.41.290 “State preemption” Cleary does not allow for such illegal regulation.
I trust is this merely an oversight of State Law and this sign will be promptly removed from City Hall and any other public building where signs of this nature are found, and that no person who legally possesses a firearm under State and Federal Law will be removed by employees or by Law Enforcement.
Point of contact:
See corrections above in red.
Also, you may want to point out, as has been done with previous letters (look back at old threads in regards to dealing with similar issues), that it is in their best interests to change it, due to the possibility of being sued over illegal detention or arrest.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
Thanks for the fixes and additional info to address in the correspondence.
I just got back from City Hall; there are not one, but, two signs. One is outside next to the entrance and the one Jim675 reported inside. I took pictures of both.
Just past the indoor sign was a directory for the Council Chambers and Mayors office upstairs, no bearing of course on the bogus sign.
I asked the Gal working at the counter if anyone had ever commented on the signs and mentioned, overall she was disconcerted and stated they have always been there. I explained 9.41.300 and the court house scenario, I she offered that the building had been the court house in the past (maybe an old sign was never removed), but still in its day was misleading and incorrect. I did pass off WA Gun Rights pamphlet on the way out.
I’ll continue with contacting the City, not sure I’ll do anything since its said they have been addressed before.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
Correspondence sent minutes ago! Now the wait begins.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 4th, 2009 07:21 pm |
|
The Signs have been removed, stopped in City Hall today and verified.
|
sempercarry
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon May 4th, 2009 09:46 pm |
|
| That was quick....well done.
|
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue May 5th, 2009 12:23 am |
|
Well done and thank you.
|
Current time is 09:29 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
