|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Washington > Local codes brought in line with state law
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Washington > Local codes brought in line with state law
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member 
|
As you can see, it is a rather unweilding list. It's a work in progress. I just needed to get something to start with. I know there are answers to many of these on the board (maybe even this thread). Legend
Aberdeen 2.86.020 Emergency Powers Airway Heights 12.04.010 Parks Algona 9.24.160 Parks; Council to amend code per this post and resolved Asotin 12.20.070 Parks Auburn 9.34.020 Alcohol by the drink Auburn 2.75.080, 9.04.010 Emergency Powers Bainbridge Island 12.20.060 Parks Bainbridge Island 9.10.040 City Hall Bainbridge Island 8.20.010 Emergency Powers Battle Ground 2.74.090 Emergency Powers Bellevue 3.43.320 Parks; Scheduled for next code revision per this thread Bellingham 8.04.170 Parks; Repealed 12/15/2008 Benton County 7.28.020 Parks Blaine 12.32.060 Parks Bonney Lake 12.12.140 Parks Bonney Lake 9.86.020/9.86.030 Public Meetings Bothell 8.60.350 [lookup] Bremerton 13.04.060 Parks; Amended 11/19/2008 Brewster 9.40.060 Parks Brewster 9.36.010 Alcohol by the drink Buckley 10.84.185 Parks Buckley 2.96.090 Emergency Powers Burien 9.50.220 Council Chambers; revision being drafted per this post Burien 9.50.210 Alcohol by the drink; revision being drafted per this post Burlington 2.72.040 Parks Camas 12.32.150 Parks; amended 09/08/20009 per post on wa-ccw list (Yahoo Group). Cathlamet 9.20.010 Alcohol by the drink Centralia 10.33.080 Parks; per this thread (Chehalis 7.04.150 per this post) Chelan 9.22.020 Parks; per this post Chelan 9.18.040 Alcohol by the drink; per this post Chelan County 7.24.010 Parks; per this post Chelan County 7.22.020 Alcohol by the drink Clark County 9.04.190 Parks Connell 9.28.020/9.28.040 Drinking and carry; Leave your firearm with the bartender! Covington 8.40.240 Parks; Council will amend code. LE informed not to enforce Deer Park 9.12.020 City Hall/Municipal Building Des Moines 9.36.040 Council Chambers (meets in municipal court…) Des Moines 9.36.030 Alcohol by the drink Douglas 13.08.190 Parks DuPont 10.03.060 Parks East Wenatchee 12.12.040 Parks East Wenatchee 9.20.040 Alcohol by the drink East Wenatchee 9.12.020 Emergency Powers Eatonville 12.20.120 Parks Eatonville 2.60.040 Emergency Powers Elma 9.34.020 Alcohol (close but no cigar) Ephrata 9.20.010 CC permission granted by Chief; language will be amended on Jan 21 to correct Ephrata 9.40.040 Parks Ephrata 14.08.050 Cemetery Ephrata 9.22.010 Alcohol by the drink Everett 9.02.020 Emergency Powers Everett 10.78.080 Public Conveyance Federal Way 11-72 Parks; Amended 01/06/2009 Federal Way 6-139 Council Chambers; Amended 01/06/2009 Federal Way 6-138 Alcohol by the drink; Amended 01/06/2009 Ferndale 12.26.040 Parks; Repealed 02/02/2009 Fife 12.22.020 Parks Fircrest 10.12.050 Parks Forks 9.05.150 Parks Gig Harbor 9.12.020 Emergency Powers Grandview 2.48.160 Cemetery Grandview 12.28.070 Parks Grandview 9.36.110 Schools (exceeding RCW 9.41.300) Island County 9.40.320 Parks; has been reviewed by counsel and will be changed per this post Issaquah 9.10.040 Alcohol by the drink Kelso 12.20.190 Parks Kelso 13.12.130 Airport King County 12.52.030 Emergency Powers Kirkland 11.41.060 Parks, City Hall, School grounds; City attorney reworking code. PD informed not to enforce, per this thread. Kitsap County 2.04.020 Emergency Powers Kitsap County 10.12.080 Parks Kittitas 9A.20.010 Alcohol by the drink; repealed 02/24/2009 Kittitas 9A.20.020 Any business in the city; repealed 02/24/2009 Lake Forest Park 12.08.050 Parks; City attorney reworking code - brought to city's attention by PD. Lakewood 8.76.530 Parks Lakewood 9.34.020 Alcohol by the drink; under the influence Langley 9.04.050 Alcohol being served (public accommodation) Langley 9.04.030 Carry concealed enumerated and declared to be disorderly person Lewis County 12.05.050 Parks; County prosecutor giving runaround per this post Liberty Lake 8-1A-5 Parks and city facilities; PD working with city council to amend code (check on city facilities) Long Beach 8-4-2 Parks Longview 10.60.020 Emergency Powers Maple Valley 7.05.050 Parks; will not be enforced pending official change per this post Marysville No Code (or unknown); GFZ signs at city hall removed, no local code relating to them (per this thread) Mason County 9.44.090 Parks McCleary 12.12.030 Parks Medina 12.24.010 Parks Mercer Island 9.40.020 Emergency Powers Mill Creek 12.12.110 Parks Milton 12.16.040 Parks Monroe 9.28.070 Parks; to be changed per this thread Moses Lake 12.36.090 Parks Mount Vernon 2.40.070 Emergency Powers Newcastle 12.55.550 Parks Oak Harbor 6.14.070 Parks; awaiting verification per this post Ocean Shores 9.01.080 Parks; Council will amend code. LE informed not to enforce Ocean Shores 8.36.020 Emergency Powers Olympia 12.60.050 Parks; City attorney reworking code. PD informed not to enforce Olympia 02.04.090 Emergency Powers Orting 8-6-4 Parks Pasco 9.48.090 Parks Pasco 2.04.020 Emergency Powers Pierce County 14.08.060 Parks Port Angeles 2.48.210 Parks Poulsbo 12.30.060 Parks Puyallup 13.20.010 Cemetery Puyallup 9.20.050 Parks and public facilities Quincy 9.13.020 Alcohol by the drink Raymond 9.80.050 City Hall Redmond 9.12.020 Emergency Powers; under review with probable repeal per this thread Richland 9.22.070 Parks; per this thread Richland 9.27.020 Alcohol by the drink; appears not yet resolved? Roy 8-4-3 Parks SeaTac 15.20.045 Homeless encampment permit approval requirements… Seattle 18.12.140 Parks; Repealed - Ordinance 122789 Signed 09/25/2008 Seattle 10.02.020 Emergency Powers Sedro-Woolley 2.40.040 Emergency Powers Selah 1.58.010 Emergency Powers Sequim 12.24.010 Parks Sequim 9.36.010 Alcohol served (at all) Shoreline 8.12.490 Parks Skagit County 9.41.190 Parks County Attorney will notify LE not to enforce. Will amend code Snohomish 13.04.070 Parks Snohomish County 22.16.090 Parks Snohomish County 15.08.205 Airport Snoqualmie 12.12.350 Parks; may or may not be amended, but PD advised not to enforce per this thread Soap Lake 9.36.010, 9.36.030 Alcohol by the drink Spokane 10.10.040 Parks; Addressed with City Attorney on 12/22/2008, not changed yet Spokane 10.10.050 City public assembly building; Addressed with City Attorney on 12/22/2008, not changed yet Spokane 2.04.030 Emergency Powers; Code was updated in 2008 with input from fetch but still needs work Spokane Valley 6.05.090 Parks Sultan 9.32.010 Alcohol (close, but real confusing) Sumner 12.60.040 Parks Sunnyside 12.04.020 Parks Sunnyside 9.20.030 Alcohol (way off on this one) Tacoma --no code-- Cheney Stadium; Taking Cherry Stance per this thread Tacoma 8.96.030 Emergency Powers Thurston County 10.76.290 Parks Toppenish 2.80.020 Parks Union Gap 2.88.030 Emergency Powers University Place 15.05.050 Parks; to be amended and not enforced per this thread, signs removed Vancouver 15.04.060 Parks; changed on website, no sign change Vancouver 2.12.040 Emergency Powers Wenatchee 6A.18.240 Parks; amended 01/22/2009 and has been republished West Richland 12.12.030 Parks West Richland 9.36.012 Alcohol by the drink Whatcom County 9.32.085 Parks; being reviewed by outside counsel, expect April 2009 before resolved. Yakima 13.16.120 Parks; amended in June, looking at new signs Yakima 7.04.090 Cemetery; amended in August Yakima 6.06.030 Emergency Powers; amended 10/20/2009 removing firearm references per this post Yakima County 11.04.500 Parks Yakima County 5.16.090 Circuses, Carnivals, Rodeos, Animal Shows and Rides, and Other Occasional Amusements, Sporting Events, or Shows Yakima County 9.46.040 Snowmobile (basically considered as hunting from vehicle) Yelm 9.68.040 Parks Zillah 13.24.150 Parks Zillah 2.04.200 Emergency Powers Zillah 5.32.060 Banquets (yes, banquets) Port of Seattle General Rule 16.a Possession in non-sterile area; Taking Cherry Stance Last edited on Sun Nov 1st, 2009 04:08 am by Gene Beasley |
|||||||||
|
sean-1286 Regular Member
|
I think the first small town was Montesano: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4027. Unless I'm mistaken, it wasn't that they repealed a bill that already existed, but the mayor vetoed it before it could be put into effect. |
|||||||||
|
tricityguy Regular Member
|
Richland's law has fallen: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/19000.html I need to make sure they actually updated the code, but the city attorney informed me they were removing signs and changing the law. Last edited on Tue Jan 13th, 2009 02:47 am by tricityguy |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member 
|
I wrote a letter to the City Administrator of Ferndale on November 22 about their parks ordinance and followed up with a phone call last week. They are "working on it" and he assured me they will enact a repeal "shortly". They are also working on a lockbox system at the municipal court in order to comply with RCW 9.41.300. I invited myself to the City Council meeting when these bills are brought up. I will post reports as developments warrant. Last edited on Tue Jan 13th, 2009 08:05 am by Richard6218 |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
t3rmin wrote: Good idea. Chehalis code was not on the MRSC site, but I found the Code Publishing from their web page. I din't find anything for firearms with them. It seems for the most part they have adopted RCW's by reference for their criminal code and I didn't find a seperate parks code. |
|||||||||
|
dt Regular Member 
|
Vancouver changed the rules listed on the Parks & Recreation website to read "discharge of firearms" as prohibited rather than simple possession. This was in Sept. 2007. Here is a snip from an email I received back from Brian Potter with Vancouver Parks & Recreation: Long story short, your research is correct... only the State can determine where one can "possess" a firearm. Therefore, any local code is invalid if it attempts to regulate possession beyond that regulated by RCW.
However, local jurisdictions do have authority to regulate where one can "discharge" a firearm. Therefore, while you may opening possess or conceal a firearm, you may not discharge the firearm while on park property.
Make sense?
He didn't want to change the signage, but I believe Lonnie had some discussion with him and IIRC it was going to happen. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows: 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 3. Discharge or propel across, in, or into any county-owned park a firearm, bow and arrow, spear gun, harpoon, or air or gas weapon, or any similar dangerous device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property. A violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor. B. The following are affirmative defenses to a violation of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The activity constituting the violation was authorized by the Whatcom County parks and recreation director as a special recreational activity upon a finding that the activity is consistent with parks use. 2. Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person. (A direct copy of RCW 9.41.270(3)(c)) 3. Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony. (A direct copy of RCW 9.41.270(3)(d)) 4. Any properly licensed hunter during an applicable hunting period or season, who is entering or leaving an approved hunting area, or who traverses park property while entering or leaving an approved hunting area. 5. If otherwise exempted by either RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) or (6) as currently enacted or hereafter amended or by Section 9.32.090 (C), (D), or (G) as currently enacted or hereafter amended. C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of an individual licensed under RCW 9.41.070 to carry a concealed weapon in a county-owned park. (Ord. 99-007). C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of an individual licensed under RCW 9.41.070 to carry a concealed weapon in a county-owned park. (Ord. 99-007). (Allows CC) I see no problem with most of this ordinance, except these: 9.32.085.A.2 I see no reason to challenge most of this subsection, but the phrase "exposed to public view" could be construed negatively if it is applied to an individual openly carrying. If it can be so applied, then it should be challenged. Legal opinion is solicited. 9.32.085.B This section gives us defenses against the prohibition set forth in the lead section, in the manner of the RCW (9.41.270) but then takes it away by requiring a defendant to prove his/her right to carry. This phrase ("defendant must prove...") probably warrants challenge. Again, legal opinion is solicited. These are just my own interpretations. If someone can confirm my reading of them I will start a challenge with the county attorney, or whoever turns out to be the person responsible for maintaining the County Code. Last edited on Tue Jan 13th, 2009 08:21 pm by Richard6218 |
|||||||||
|
badger54 Regular Member 
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Great list this will help me with sending my letters to different cities. |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
I am just going to post here now to let people know what cities i have contacted. I just sent a letter to Bellevue pertaining their weapons in parks. |
|||||||||
|
uncoolperson Regular Member
|
Richard6218 wrote: I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows: I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not inline with state code, as it allows and exemption by RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) or (6) which is " (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to: (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms" so it cancels itself out, and provided for the possibility that state law would cancel it out. also allows for exemption by 9.41.060 (x2 county and state level), which off the top of my head most county parks could be considered legit outdoor activities. and with 9.41.060 saying "The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:", which kinda creates an exemption because it states that you only need the exemptions of 9.41.060 when you do something covered by 9.41.050. So a county park is okay if you abide by 9.41.060, which you are inline with if you are not doing something covered by 9.41.050. I don't think anyone would charge you... however, I'd like it to be removed because it does provide for the possibility. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
dt wrote: Vancouver changed the rules listed on the Parks & Recreation website to read "discharge of firearms" as prohibited rather than simple possession. This was in Sept. 2007. [highlight mine for thread clarity] -gb I have been reading council and commission minutes from late September to date trying to find something else. I didn't recall finding any ordinance changing their park code. Do you know if the actual code was changed? I read the minutes (okay, searched for 'parks') from 09/01 to 11/10. Their muni code is self published on the web and it has not been changed. Section 15.04.060 Firearms and fireworks. Firearms, fireworks, bows, arrows, and sling shots are prohibited in any park. It is unlawful to shoot, fire, or explode any firearms, fireworks, firecracker, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to carry any firearms or to shoot or fire any air gun, bows, and arrows, BB gun or use any slingshot in any park; provided, the director of parks may issue permits for use of safe and sane fireworks in specified areas where fire hazards will not be increased and where the use of the fireworks will be under proper supervision, and fireworks displays may be permitted upon securing of a proper permit pursuant to state law; provided further, this section shall not prevent establishment in any park of a properly designed archery course. (Ord. M-1072 § 7, 1969) Last edited on Wed Jan 14th, 2009 12:36 pm by Gene Beasley |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
Richard6218 wrote: I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows: [snipped] I went back and reviewed the comments that are in my spreadsheet. They're kind of cryptic. While it appears not to be expressly forbidden, (A)(1) and (A)(2) Display… and exposed to public view could be open to interpretation. In (C) mention of need for concealed carry… I think it has to be taken into context of the title 9.32.085 Unlawful firearms and/or weapons in parks. I think the way it is written is to clearly discourage OC in their parks under the guise of 9.41.270. Why duplicate the .270 language for parks? At that, it only partially takes language from .270 while leaving out the pertinent portion "...in a manner, 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." This leaves display open to interpretation exceeding 290/300. If I am OC'ing, my weapon is displayed. Also found this: 8.12.020 Use of firearms restricted. The use of firearms on county dump property is prohibited and the county engineer is directed to post appropriate signs. (Prior code § 3.08.030). |
|||||||||
|
Morris Regular Member
|
Gene, just a clarification: In Lake Forest Park, it was the PD that told the city they would not enforce. Officers found the discrepancy some time ago and brought it to the city's attention. |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Sent a letter to Kittitas concerning both of the listed municipal codes. |
|||||||||
|
adamsesq Regular Member 
|
Just a thought here - all these codes that we are worried about would all of a sudden become legal again if the state legislature decided to remove preemption. That would be a very easy thing for them to do. I think that it would be easy to take preemption for granted and believe that we should be just as worried about loosing that as we are focussed on each of these small burbs. -adamsesq |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
uncoolperson wrote: Richard6218 wrote: I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows:
Andy: read the subsection again. The phrase "exposed to public view" is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted by LE to apply to anyone OC'ing. My question was whether we should challenge the phrase as part of a request that the County re-word the subsection, eliminating that phrase. The rest of the subsection seems OK to me: abandoning a weapon in a park would be a rather stupid thing to do and probably should carry penalties. This section is a paraphrase of .270 except that it puts the burden on the "defendant" (assuming one has been arrested under the Code) to prove the right to carry. The RCW places no such burden, and therein is the conflict between the County Code and the RCW. Right to carry under .270 is absolute, and it was my intention to use this issue to make a case with the County to change the ordinance. By posting this I was only seeking confirmation of my analysis. Do you agree, or disagree? I called yesterday and spoke to a Whatcom County sheriff's deputy who came unglued at the mention of my walking down the street with a gun on the hip. He claimed I could be charged with "brandishing", an assertion that I rebutted with pointing out that there is no such word in the RCW. I won't go into further detail because it has been pointed out to me that Whatcom County Sheriff's Dept. policy is more in line with state law. I am dealing with the issue of that deputy's response to my question privately. So until the issue is resolved with the Sheriff there is a very good chance of being hassled, at least by this particular Deputy. Just a word of caution. |
|||||||||
|
heresolong Regular Member 
|
adamsesq wrote: I think that it would be easy to take preemption for granted and believe that we should be just as worried about loosing that as we are focussed on each of these small burbs.Actually one of the advantages of getting these codes cleaned up is that a loss of preemption would not automatically take away our local rights. The local governing bodies would then have to propose, debate, and vote on a restriction of rights. That gives citizens the opportunity to argue against the restrictions and have a campaign issue to defeat anti-Second Amendment politicians at the local level since they would then be on record. This is good and positive work with long term benefits. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
CONTACT REPORT: DAVID MCEACHRAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, WHATCOM COUNTY I just got off the phone with the prosecuting attorney of Whatcom County. This was a most positive discussion and encouraging for us on a number of fronts. I addressed the two issues in the County Code that are discussed in this thread, namely (1) the issue of "exposed to public view", and (2) the "defendant must prove" language in 9.32.085.B. He said with regard to the first that "exposed to public view" refers to an abandoned weapon and under no circumstances at law could be applied to a weapon carried in a holster. So that resolves that one. He conceded that the "defendant must prove" phrase is more restrictive than the RCW and could be changed to be more compliant with state law. He referred me to two county council members who could best handle such a change. So I will shortly be contacting them about this issue. We discussed another question that came up in another thread, about the video of the Bellingham City Council meeting. For those who haven't followed that thread, the Council first resolved to repeal the City's guns-in-parks ordinance, and in the next breath passed another resolution to "lobby the Legislature to enact a change in the preemption law". Mr. McEachran's opinion of that is that it will have no effect whatever on the Legislature, who have too many other priorities anyway. So we can disregard that resolution as an empty gesture. Onward and upward.....  |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Sent something to Chelan County |
|||||||||
|
jddssc121 Regular Member
|
Izzle wrote: Sent something to Chelan County Chelan County Sheriff is researching. I spoke with him on the phone |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
t3rmin wrote: heresolong wrote:Actually one of the advantages of getting these codes cleaned up is that a loss of preemption would not automatically take away our local rights. The local governing bodies would then have to propose, debate, and vote on a restriction of rights. That gives citizens the opportunity to argue against the restrictions and have a campaign issue to defeat anti-Second Amendment politicians at the local level since they would then be on record. I'm not trying to minimize the issue, but as David McEachran said, unofficially but from an informed viewpoint, the Legislature has a lot of very pressing issues right now, relating to the State's financial mess and other BIG problems. So gun control is not a real priority with them. It's something that has been around for a long time and hasn't really changed a lot. Bellingham and Seattle both carry a lot of weight relatively, but they are two of the most liberal cities in the state. I personally don't see a lot of them doing what Bellingham is doing, and in any case, as McEachran said, the Legislature isn't going to act on it. My own city, Ferndale, has been one example going in the other direction, and I think they are more typical. So let's not panic --- I'm usually one to take the pessimistic view, but this doesn't look to me like time to pull the fire alarm --- at least, not yet. |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Sent something to Monroe about the parks ban and Burien about their by the drink policy and council chambers. Last edited on Thu Jan 15th, 2009 10:56 pm by Izzle |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
t3rmin wrote: heresolong wrote:Actually one of the advantages of getting these codes cleaned up is that a loss of preemption would not automatically take away our local rights. The local governing bodies would then have to propose, debate, and vote on a restriction of rights. That gives citizens the opportunity to argue against the restrictions and have a campaign issue to defeat anti-Second Amendment politicians at the local level since they would then be on record. Spoke today with a staff assistant to State Sen. Dale Brandland (R) about my question about the lobbying by Seattle and Bellingham. The Senator appointed a staff attorney who is knowledgeable on Title 9 issues to look into my inquiry. Her opinion was that Nickels' move will have NO effect on the Legislature and only litigation can strike it down. Evidently Nickels asked the Legislature's legal staff for an opinion, and got an answer essentially the same as the AGO issued last October. As to Bellingham, again the effect is nil. As Mr. McEachran said yesterday, the legislature has too many other pressing priorities to get into gun control issues in this session. (And that's the catch. It may come back and bite us next year, but a lot can happen in that time.) She (the Assistant) assured me that Sen. Brandland is well aware of our concerns and will contact me if anything new develops. <Edited to insert the sentence in italics.> Last edited on Fri Jan 16th, 2009 03:35 am by Richard6218 |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Got this little email back from Burien: Thank you for your message. It will be included in the Council’s Correspondence for the Record. L. Clausen City Manager’s Office |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Whatcom County Code 9.32.085.A is not a problem because the term "in plain view" which I questioned earlier turned out to refer only to a weapon abandoned in city park property. However, Sub-section 9.32.085.B is a significant problem because unlike the RCW, it bestows the right to carry but then requires "the defendant" to prove the right to do so. I have written a letter to two county council members on recommendation of the county prosecutor, and advanced my calendar about a month for a reply. <Edited for semantic accuracy> Last edited on Tue Jan 20th, 2009 07:38 am by Richard6218 |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
I received a phone call Wednesday (28) from Greg Young, the City Administrator of Ferndale informing me that the (Judicial?) Committee reviewed the guns-in-parks ordinance and written a repeal into the consent agenda for next Monday's City Council meeting. This means that it's all but a done deal  I'm going to that meeting just to say a few words of thanks.They are also activating a firearm lockbox system for the muni court, as required by RCW. |
|||||||||
|
jbone Regular Member 
|
Richard6218 wrote: uncoolperson wrote:Richard6218 wrote:I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows: Whatcom County and other areas like it seem the places group meets should be held. Not places were we know we can carry with out hassle. If the State law is our friend then why not, only those who restrict us are breaking the law. Would a group meet an area like these be in our favor? I see on the forum folks are doing this successfully around the nation with media attention. Add: According to below thread Whatcom hasn’t change much in 2+ years, they are due for a meet!! They’ve been left in the back forty way to long. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/264.html Last edited on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 08:28 pm by jbone |
|||||||||
|
heresolong Regular Member
|
jbone wrote:Whatcom County and other areas like it seem the places group meets should be held. Not places were we know we can carry with out hassle. If the State law is our friend then why not, only those who restrict us are breaking the law. Would a group meet an area like these be in our favor? I see on the forum folks are doing this successfully around the nation with media attention.I think much of what you see from Whatcom County is just a few individual officers. Richard has also posted (or perhaps he just told me) that Bill Elfo, the sheriff, is totally on our side on this one and will be speaking to the deputy involved in the phone conversation. The heads of Blaine, Ferndale, and the chief lawyer for Whatcom County have all agreed that we are right and are taking steps to resolve the issues. Bellingham repealed their ordinance (although accompanied by stupid comments) but they did the right thing. We will keep having meets in Whatcom County, but it isn't the oppressive dictatorship that it might seem at first glance. That being said, it's probably time to get together again. I'll start a new thread. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
heresolong wrote: jbone wrote:Whatcom County and other areas like it seem the places group meets should be held. Not places were we know we can carry with out hassle. If the State law is our friend then why not, only those who restrict us are breaking the law. Would a group meet an area like these be in our favor? I see on the forum folks are doing this successfully around the nation with media attention.I think much of what you see from Whatcom County is just a few individual officers. Richard has also posted (or perhaps he just told me) that Bill Elfo, the sheriff, is totally on our side on this one and will be speaking to the deputy involved in the phone conversation. The heads of Blaine, Ferndale, and the chief lawyer for Whatcom County have all agreed that we are right and are taking steps to resolve the issues. Bellingham repealed their ordinance (although accompanied by stupid comments) but they did the right thing. Bellingham repealed their ordinance (although accompanied by stupid comments) but they did the right thing. Heresolong: It is true that Bellingham repealed their ordinance but they "did the right thing" only grudgingly. The second resolution they passed was to lobby the Legislature to "change the preemption law", or similar language. So they only repealed the ordinance in order to comply with the RCW for the moment. I would characterize their attitude as being in lock step with Greg Nickels but a bit less aggressive. |
|||||||||
|
jddssc121 Regular Member
|
Heard back from Algona (prohibit carry in parks- City Code 9.24.160) I wanted to let you know our City Attorney is working on a code amendment that would be in compliance with State law. Its dedicated citizens like yourself who help make Algona a great city to live and work in! Thank you for bringing this to our attention. |
|||||||||
|
jddssc121 Regular Member
|
Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief. Attachment: firearms_memo.doc (Downloaded 51 times) |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
jddssc121 wrote: Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief. If this is the result of your efforts, congratulations. Next step: approach the City Manager, or City Attorney, whichever may be appropriate, and ask that they repeal the code. This should only consist of a contact (a formal letter is best) outlining what the Chief has already said and citing the code and the RCW preemption section, 9.41.290. Point out the conflict and request that they enact a change to conform to the state law. Pretty straightforward. Good luck. |
|||||||||
|
jddssc121 Regular Member
|
Richard6218 wrote: jddssc121 wrote:Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief. We had a few emails back and forth. He was very helpful. The city attorney is now trying to fix the code itself. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
jddssc121 wrote: Richard6218 wrote:The City Attorney doesn't have the authority to change a code. He can recommend a change to the City Council, who are the legislative branch of the city government. What he can do, and usually does, is write the revision of the code and submit it to the city council for consideration. If they agree, they will pass a resolution adopting the revision, and it's done. So what you need to do is ask the city attorney to start that process. From the tone of the Chief's letter it sounds like they are rather agreeable folks, so this should be fairly easy to do. But plan on it taking probably two months, just because it's government.jddssc121 wrote:Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
Izzle wrote: Sent something to Chelan County and jddssc121, Was this on both issues or just parks? Chelan County 7.24.010 Parks |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Ferndale code 12.26.040 Firearms in city parks was repealed in the City Council meeting last night, Feb. 2. So that is a done deal. Whatcom County code 8.12.020 about "use" of firearms in the county dump is a questionable issue. (I can remember shooting rats in the Walla Walla dump about 45 years ago ) I read the word "use" to mean "discharge" as opposed to "carry", and that regulation would give the county jurisdiction to regulate under 9.41.300. I seriously doubt they would prosecute simply for carrying in the dump. |
|||||||||
|
Gray Peterson State Researcher 
|
Seattle repealed it's statutory firearm ban in parks. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
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. Last edited on Mon Feb 9th, 2009 02:35 am by Gene Beasley |
|||||||||
|
joeroket Regular Member
|
Gene Beasley wrote: I'm about to adress Des Moines. Topic for discussion before I get started: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
|
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
|
kparker wrote: 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.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. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
heresolong wrote: kparker wrote: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.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. 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
|
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. 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 
|
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
|
Richard6218 wrote: 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
|
"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 
|
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
|
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.. 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
|
bump - the poor man's sticky |
|||||||||
|
badger54 Regular Member
|
badger54 wrote: Oak Harbor 6.14.070 ParksI 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
|
badger54 wrote: badger54 wrote:Oak Harbor 6.14.070 ParksI 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
|
The Kittitas City Code has been repealed so that status can be changed. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
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
|
Gene Beasley wrote: Izzle wrote:The Kittitas City Code has been repealed so that status can be changed. 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
|
badger54 wrote: 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
|
amlevin wrote: Stimulatebadger54 wrote:  Your point may be well made, but your choice of words is most unfortunate  |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
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
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
Island county 9.40.320 needs green pending! 2 April 2009 Dear Mr. Havercroft, The Board of Island County Commissioners has had discussion regarding weapons in parks. We have routed your concerns to our legal department for interpretation and recommendation. Indeed our code is in conflict with state regulations. We have been advised to proceed with a recommendation for code revision via our Parks Board (this is the process). Please know that your inquiries and concerns are very important to us. Our staff and programs have been and will continue to be compromised due to the financial crisis that Island County our Nation and even the world face. Unfortunately this translates to longer response times. We appreciate your patience and reminders. In the mean time - our law enforcement and law and justice staff are aware of the situation and will respond accordingly i.e. it is unlikely we will have an arrest under a code we know is unenforceable; hence we do not anticipate a situation where legal expenses will be incurred. Sincerely, Angie Homola Island County Commissioner District 2 (360) 679-7353 office a.homola@co.island.wa.us Note: All correspondence is public record Last edited on Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 09:38 pm by NavyLT |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Gene Beasley wrote: 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. Check out Wenatchee Municipal Code 6A.18.240 at: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/wenatchee.html It is still listed but they said they have a call into the company that lists their Municipal code to have them change it. |
|||||||||
|
j2l3 Regular Member 
|
I'm still not seeing the issue. That code doesn't prohibit the possession of firearms, only the discharge or firearms unless for self defense. Discharge IS permitted to be regulated. Last edited on Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 10:09 pm by j2l3 |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
6A.18.240 Firearms prohibited in parks. (1) No person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel shall possess a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, or air or gas weapon in a city park. |
|||||||||
|
j2l3 Regular Member
|
It doesn't say that, at least not in the version in the link you provided. Must have already been changed. 6A.18.240 Firearms prohibited in parks. (1) No person shall possess a bow and arrow, crossbow, or air or gas weapon in a city park. No person shall discharge across, in, or into any city park area a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal or damaging or destroying any public or private property except for law enforcement officials acting in official capacity, or discharge of a firearm in defense of self or others. (2) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. (Ord. 2009-04 § 1; Ord. 2008-10 § 2) |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Ah it must have just been changed earlier today because I still had the window open from last night that I cited it out of. |
|||||||||
|
j2l3 Regular Member
|
Well cool, glad it's changed! They work fast when they need to it seems. |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Received this back from the City of Chelan so I guess there status can be updated:Thanks for the follow-up. We did take it to committee and decided we would follow the state law as it is written. Our attorney will be drawing this up for us to be presented to full council. I hope this helps. Jim Last edited on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 11:39 pm by Izzle |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
Izzle wrote: Received this back from the City of Chelan so I guess there status can be updated: Is this for both the parks and alcohol by the drink or just parks? |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
I have addressed both of them during my email conversations so I can only assume both. |
|||||||||
|
Right Wing Wacko Campaign Veteran 
|
Izzle wrote: Received this back from the City of Chelan so I guess there status can be updated: So THEY decided they would follow State Law! Did they have another option? |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
I don't know if it is too early to change the status but I received this email from Burien stating that they are drafting a new ordnance concerning 9.50.210 and 9.50.220. I have been informed that a draft ordinance is being worked on, and it is hoped that this will be brought before the Council shortly. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Izzle wrote: I don't know if it is too early to change the status but I received this email from Burien stating that they are drafting a new ordnance concerning 9.50.210 and 9.50.220. Governments have a way of dragging their feet and taking forever to act on ANYthing. I would not suggest changing the status until you witness a city council action enacting whatever it is you want. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
Richard6218 wrote: Governments have a way of dragging their feet and taking forever to act on ANYthing. I would not suggest changing the status until you witness a city council action enacting whatever it is you want. It's currently listed as pending, not resolved. I don't have real strict standards for these, but generally amended or repealed statutes is good enough in my mind to be resolved (signs may still read incorrectly). |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Gene Beasley wrote: Richard6218 wrote:Governments have a way of dragging their feet and taking forever to act on ANYthing. I would not suggest changing the status until you witness a city council action enacting whatever it is you want. Gene: I agree that the status would more correctly be "pending" but to me it seems classifying the item as "resolved" would mean that final action has already been taken, i.e. a resolution passed by a city or county council. Am I on track with that? |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
Gene Beasley wrote: Richard6218 wrote:Governments have a way of dragging their feet and taking forever to act on ANYthing. I would not suggest changing the status until you witness a city council action enacting whatever it is you want. I also got an email today from the City Manager's office that they have informed the local PD not to enforce the two codes. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
Richard6218 wrote: Gene: Right on track. Because of the time and cost involved in changing out signs and republishing codes online, neither of which is cheap; if I can find find evidence that the local legislative body has taken action on it, I count that as resolved. Izzle wrote: I also got an email today from the City Manager's office that they have informed the local PD not to enforce the two codes. I'm kind of torn on this insofar as I don't remember if I kept others like this as pending or moved them to resolved. I think I kept them pending. In either case I would have pointed to the post (if in this thread) or thread/post discussing the latest update. Kind of wordy; I need to get to sleep. Good job! |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
I received a response from Chelan County that they have changed their code to conform with state law. Here is a link to the resolution that they signed: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?johjkzzjtmn |
|||||||||
|
kyle.huff Regular Member
|
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. I know this because I was physically detained while peaceably shopping - and had my firearm removed from me without my consent by the Longview police. (I was not charged, nor arrested, you can read the whole story here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/25693.html ). I was told by the officers that the city attorney interprets RCW 9.41.270 as no open carry. Currently I am collecting the supporting documentation regarding the event (the police report, the official written legal opinion of the city attorney, etc.) to speak with the longview city council members about. We will see where it goes from there. I will keep you up to date of any official decision. [EDIT] Added a link to the opencarry forum topic which details the event. Last edited on Sun May 10th, 2009 09:55 pm by kyle.huff |
|||||||||
|
Izzle Regular Member
|
I had a wonderful conversation with the City Attorney of Maple Valley about their municipal code 7.05.050. She informed me that she spoke with the the chief of police and they both agreed it is in violation of state law. She also said he will be informing his officers not to enforce the code until she is able to make the proper changes. |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
kyle.huff wrote: I have one to add to this list for Longview Washington - 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
|
I'm going to try contacting Pierce County Parks and Recreation tomorrow. |
|||||||||
|
kyle.huff Regular Member
|
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 
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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. 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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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. Dave: +1 |
|||||||||
|
Guns_N_Fire Regular Member 
|
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 tobe 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
|
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
|
NavyLT wrote: Guns_N_Fire, 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
|
copy that sounds good....after awhile i will get use to the political lingo...thanks for the input.. |
|||||||||
|
don99123 Regular Member
|
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
|
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 
|
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
|
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 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 |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Well, it appears the Whatcom County parks ordinance repeal is stalled, and the promises made to me by County Commisioner Sam Crawford have gone by the board. Some months ago after discussing preemption with Crawford and Sheriff Bill Elfo I was promised that a draft of a repeal ordinance was working its way through legal review and would be submitted July 7 for consideration at the meeting of July 21. On the 20th I looked at the agenda online for the meeting the next night and it was conspicuous by its absence. A call to Crawford was not returned. Next move??? |
|||||||||
|
joeroket Regular Member
|
I would call him a few more times and send him both an e-mail and registered letter asking exactly the same thing. |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Joe, I think you're right that persistence may pay off, but I'm always wary with politicians of pushing things too hard and just p---ing them off. Then we become a pest and they don't respond at all. But it's worth another run at it. Another thought: he may think I'm just a solo actor here and so he doesn't need to do things for one citizen acting alone. But if he hears from several other people who are his own constituents he's more likely to move on it. To that end, here's his phone number: 360-671-7262, a direct line. (May be a cell phone) He can be reached also at the Whatcom County website/commissioners/Sam Crawford. I'm really disappointed about this. I thought I had a "done deal" and as politicians like to do, he screwed me.  |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
Just an update on the City of Yakima Ordinances, I have sent letters to city attorney and emails to all City Council Members and as of to date not one reply. Today I took it one step farther and started calling the candidates who are up for reelection or running for office and was able to contact one sitting council member Micah Cawley and one prospective council member David Ettl and discussed the issue of how can citizens expect their voice is going to be heard when it is very evident they do not answers letters, emails or phone calls? The current council member said he was sorry but he would be sending in to council and will get back to me soon, hmm something to do with election time I guess, if it works then great. The other agreed that the council needs to listen to who they represent and is appalled by not receiving a response. I continued with the aspect of out dated city ordinances that house keeping should come into play and take care of matters and Ettl agreed fully and with the armed citizen should not be impaired. The city council is battling a very negative reputation right now do to being caught up in a violation of the open meetings act which was publicized here in Yakima recently. My next stop is a council meeting to bring up the issues of State Preemption and Emergency Powers, I told them I was hoping to deal with this quietly but if they prefer to handle this in lets say a more public view then that is fine, as many know Yakima is having a terrible time with gang violence, with close to 10 shootings in the past 9 days or so and some where around 20 since last may. I do not like the idea of gang members find out they can legally carry in parks if they have not had their rights taken away, but law abiding citizens and take the responsibility seriously will know. Last edited on Tue Aug 4th, 2009 03:25 am by BigDave |
|||||||||
|
Gene Beasley Regular Member
|
BigDave wrote: [snip] as many know Yakima is having a terrible time with gang violence, with close to 10 shootings in the past 9 days or so and some where around 20 since last may. I do not like the idea of gang members find out they can legally carry in parks if they have not had their rights taken away, but law abiding citizens and take the responsibility seriously will know. You also want to be able to protect yourself and yours from said miscreants. Good luck. |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
Yakima City Council Member Micah Cawley has just contacted me, he has contacted the City Manager and awaiting his response and most likely a fix to the ordinances and he will contact me when he can get the council to adopt this change. I must say I am happy to see him respond and will make myself available to assist if questions arise. Dave |
|||||||||
|
Bull Frog Regular Member 
|
Wow. Good work. I was born in Bremerton, and arrested for CCW while open carrying hitchhiking (LOC) near Olympia. I had a court appointed lawyer (circa 1975) but was still convicted for CCW. Yes, open carry on a holster, loaded of course, but this was close to the year of love. I thought I could go camping with my gun. I still remember the deputy at the jail moaning as he unloaded my .22 pea shooter - you'd think he'd just arrested John Dillinger. The Washington State Police arrested and incarcerated me, and could not be bothered to charge me with the correct crime (if there was one). And the lawyer? What a joke he was - he started to explain the gun was not concealed, the judge overrulled him - and I was found guilty, with time served. What a crock. It's not a whole lot better today. Got money? Get heard. Indigent? You're a turd, unworthy of human rights. Got money? |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
I just spoke with Councilmen Micah Calley of the City of Yakima and per our conversation it is in the works to removes any mention as to firearms as the State governs the restrictions on firearms and hopes this will be concluded with in a couple of weeks. It is good to see things moving in this direction to correct these out of date ordinances. Thanks Micah Big Dave |
|||||||||
|
jddssc121 Regular Member
|
Redmond has been fixed |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
I have posted the saga of the Whatcom County code about county parks going back to, I believe, about the first of this year. I got one promise after another and I actually thought things were going quite well, for a while. Mr. Crawford of the County Council assured me that he would present a draft resolution to the Council at their meeting of July 7 for consideration at the subsequent meeting July 14. That didn't happen. I called him a on the 14th when I looked up the agenda for that night's meeting and found the item not on the docket. He never returned my call. I didn't get around to the next step until Aug. 19, but got ambitious and wrote the letter below. It has now been ten days and no reply to this. If there are any Whatcom County residents out there I sure could use some support on this. Here is another example of politicians ignoring the will of the people.
August 19, 2009 Honorable Sam Crawford Whatcom County Council 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 105 Bellingham, WA 98225 Re: WCC 9.32.085 Dear Mr. Crawford: It has been some two months since we last discussed the conflict between the referenced County Code Section concerning county regulation of firearms in county-owned parks and the State law of pre-emption, RCW 9.41.290. In our last discussion you expressed a hope that, following a legal review which you requested, the matter would be presented for scheduling at the Council meeting of July 7, 2009 and docketed for consideration by the full Council July 21. This apparently has not happened, and I have not heard from you about what may have been the reason(s) why. I know that you are familiar with all the details, but please bear with me as I summarize for the record. WCC 9.32.085 states in part: 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 ….. B. The following are affirmative defenses to a violation of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The activity ….. 2. Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person. 3. Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony. The State law of preemption says the following: RCW 9.41.290 State preemption.
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. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact Honorable Sam Crawford August 19, 2009 only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. The direct conflict is between WCC 9.32.085(A)(1) and RCW 9.41.270 regarding the carrying of weapons for the purpose of self-defense. Our purpose was to enact an appropriate amendment to bring the County Code into compliance with State law. When we last addressed the question I was confident that your draft legislation would be adopted at the July 21 meeting of the County Council. I would appreciate your earliest response with an update to this, if any. Sincerely, |
|||||||||
|
Richard6218 Regular Member
|
Just got off the phone with Sam Crawford about the Whatcom County code issue. He did a lot of mea culpa about why this hasn't been done. Long and short: he's 100% with us on this, and he blames workload for the delay. He says the Council is taking the whole month of August off, and the next meeting will be 9/15. He also says his priority lately has been getting more conservatives elected to the Council. I didn't want to lean too hard on him because he is on our side. So we just need to keep the issue in front of him till it gets done. |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
City of Yakima Council Meeting today had this issue of the gun ban concerning City Cemetery on the agenda today until I contacted Micah Cawley and reminded him we need to address the gun ban on the City Parks and the Cities Emergency Powers to prohibit gun possession outside the home as well. As I was watching the Council Meeting Micah Cawley removed the included change of the City Ordinance for the Cemetery so the remaining Ordinances could be added and acted upon and with his email this evening, the City Ordinances concerning Firearms to come into compliance with Washington State Law. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Cawley, Micah <mcawley@ci.yakima.wa.us> wrote: I am sure it will take a little bit to update the online ordinances, which Micah has advised me they will be deleted. If you get a chance send Micah a High Five for moving ahead on this issue, remember I have contacted all the council members, The Mayor and City Attorney and he is the only one that responded. Dave Last edited on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 06:31 am by BigDave |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
I am posting this in hopes someone else can gain something from what my experience was. This had to do with City Ordinances that prohibited possession of firearms outside of RCW 9.41.290/300 and right to carry under Article 1 § 24 of the Washington State Constitution 13.16.120 Parks and Playgrounds, Rules and Regulations Firearms prohibited—Throwing prohibited 7.04 (F) Tahoma Cemetery 6.06 Emergency Powers of Mayor, City Council and City Manager from Cawley, Micah <mcawley@ci.yakima.wa.us> to dapoling@gmail.com date Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM subject Re: City Ordinances mailed-by ci.yakima.wa.us 9:56 PM (11 hours ago) Hi, I took it of the consent agenda to make sure that we updated all the city laws you asked for! It passed 7-0 vote and is now in line with the 2nd amendment. Thanks for your leadership on this issue. -Micah And when I asked Mr Cawley what wording or removal was to be changed he replied. from Cawley, Micah <mcawley@ci.yakima.wa.us> to dapoling@gmail.com date Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:25 PM subject Re: City Ordinances mailed-by ci.yakima.wa.us 10:25 PM (10 hours ago) Hi Dave, there is no re-wording, it has been removed from the city laws, since we can't enforce it! Good thing you caught this before we were sued or challenged. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. -Micah When I first started this I ran into road blocks to say the least with trying to contact the City Attorney, Sending emails to all the council members with no response and I even setup a meeting with the Chief of Police which was in my view a good move to get an inside position of the Department. After spinning my wheels I contacted Atty Mark Knapp for his help http://firearmslawyer.net/ and having him draft a letter for me to present to the council and legal staff. I was also in contact with Gene Beasley which contributed some wisdom as well to this matter as he has been successful as well. I then started calling Council Members and the first one to answer was Micah Cawley and with the information provided and things moved ahead quickly. Here is the letter that Mr Knapp formulated on my behalf. Recently I visited local parks in the city and found signage prohibiting the possession of firearms even by those that are legal to carry for self-defense in a responsible manner. When reading the Parks Program Guide I found at the bottom of page 13. It describes City Ordinance 13.16 which lists “Please leave these items at home: …” which began my search into the firearms laws listed in City Ordinances. Yakima Municipal Code list the following codes that are in violation of State 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300 that work in concert to ensure that firearms laws are uniform throughout the state with respect to a persons right to carry under Article 1 § 24 of the Washington State Constitution. The following Yakima City Ordinances have not been updated since their passage to come with in compliance: · 13.16.120 Parks and Playgrounds, Rules and Regulations Firearms prohibited—Throwing prohibited · 7.04 (F) Tahoma Cemetery · 6.06 Emergency Powers of Mayor, City Council and City Manager While I am of the opinion that YMC 6.06.030 falls outside of the spirit and letter of the RCW’s in where the governor has the sole power and duty to proclaim an emergency (RCW 43.06.010 § 12) that is outside of the scope of this letter. Irrespective of any interpretation of the rest of YMC 6.06.030, subsections 5, 6, and 7 are in excess of the very specific circumstances outlined in RCW 9.41.300 and need to be entirely stricken In addition to reviewing the above items, I would ask that you review the RCW 9.41.290/300, Attorney General Opinion 2008 No. 8, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Nordyke v. King (April 20, 2009) and D.C. v. Heller and as of recently two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I recently had a private meeting with Chief Granato and discussed these issues and came to the conclusion that the Cities Ordinances prohibiting firearms are not enforceable and if cited it would be thrown out in court right away as to RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption. During the discussion I found that Chief Granato is a supported of the 2nd Amendment and have seen several cases here and elsewhere law-abiding citizens have saved their life or possibly lives of others. It is my view the Chief supports legally armed citizens and hopes many will seek training above the requirement by the State as I do. As with many Police forces through out the U.S. not all Officers are aware of the Cities Ordinances listed above are not enforceable in Yakima. I am requesting the city council to review, amend or remove the wordage that prohibits lawful carry of firearms in the City Limits to come in compliance with Washington State thus protecting the citizens of Yakima in their exercise of their right to self defense. Thank You. David Poling Yakima, WA 98902 dapoling@gmail.com |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
Update Yakima City Council, the video to this is at Y-PAC and go to the time stamp 38:25. I was under the understanding in emails from Council Member Micah Cawley that all Ordinance I raised where passed and removed. After watching the video I found out that the Parks Ordinance was removed May 2009 and the Cemetery Ordinance was removed last night 09-01-2009 and they did not vote on the Ordinance to do with Emergency Powers do to City Legal Council Brandon Farm Recommendation not to remove it do to legal matters based on the Civil War and Martial Law in Other Countries! Yes he said Martial Law in Other Countries! He does not address the issue of as it relates to the Washington State Constitution Article , RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption and RCW 43.06.010 § 12 General powers and duties in which the Governor has sole power to and duty to proclaim an emergency in Washington State. There has been talk about incorporation of the Second Amendment at the Federal level but remember Washington State Constitution has already acknowledge it being an individual right and the City Council has already recognized that the State maintains jurisdiction on gun related issues as defined in RCW 9.41.290. So the remaining issue in the City of Yakima is YMC 6.06.030 Emergency Powers in which I am trying to get back on the agenda. I dropped the ball as I did not attend the meeting for the 3 hours do to the heat and my health, but I will not make that mistake next time. Last edited on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 08:19 am by BigDave |
|||||||||
|
U8Dust Regular Member
|
obviously there is a reason why the local codes contradict state law. because the city is much smarter than the state on gun regulations |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member 
|
U8Dust wrote: obviously there is a reason why the local codes contradict state law. because the city is much smarter than the state on gun regulations Not obvious. Also, not necessarily correct. It is most likely that your comment is only because what this specific city does is in line with your views, and has nothing to do with "much smarter." |
|||||||||
|
Right Wing Wacko Campaign Veteran
|
State Preemption exists for one reason: To prevent confusion. Imagine if every city or county enacted their own gun laws. The chances are many of these laws would conflict with each other. Then imagine a drive along I-5 from Blaine to Vancouver WA, with law changing every couple miles. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for one to obey the law, worse it would be practically impossible for some LE that work in multiple jurisdictions to know what laws they can enforce on this side of the highway vs the other side. The legislature wisely decided that there would be ONE set of laws for the entire state to avoid such confusion. Anti-Gunners on the other hand thrive on the confusion. They hope to make the laws so confusing that we just give up. Well.... Not going to happen! Last edited on Thu Sep 10th, 2009 02:16 am by Right Wing Wacko |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
U8Dust wrote: obviously there is a reason why the local codes contradict state law. because the city is much smarter than the state on gun regulations It is obvious that you do not read or comprehend the information presented. Here is a copy of the Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief Bill that was signed into law by President Bush after the Katrina Disaster. In short Federal funds will not be available to those areas during an emergency or disaster if gun confiscation is occurring or occurred. http://www.iaem.com/committees/governmentaffairs/documents/stafford020807.pdf SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES. (a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.—No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may— (1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation; (2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law; (3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or (4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local January 9, 2007 Sec. 705 ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF 62 law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency. (b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation. (c) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section. (2) REMEDIES.—In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found. (3) ATTORNEY FEES.—In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. (42 U.S.C. 5207) January 9, 2007 |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
I just returned from the Yakima City Council Meeting in which the Senior City Attorney H. Harvey researched the Emergency Powers in Prohibiting Firearms in the City during an Emergency or Disaster. After the City Attorney report I was able to talk and referred
A proposal was made for the legal staff to draft a New Emergency Powers Ordinance removing the enactment of prohibiting firearms possession outside the home or business, which is to be ready at the next Council Meeting on Oct 20 2009, the proposal was passed unanimously by the Council. There were some very positive remarks made by the Mayor and other Council Members as well, yes even our Mayor that belongs to MAIG supported this removal as well. In 2 weeks I should be able to report back with positive results of having the Emergency Powers prohibiting firearms during an emergency or disaster. This will conclude my addressing the City of Yakima on legal firearms possession and will be seeking to address issues with Yakima County. This is the documentation I presented to the Mayor, Council and Legal Staff prior to the meeting. To Mayor and Council October 6, 2009 |
|||||||||
|
BigDave Opt-Out Member
|
Last night Oct 20, 2009 Yakima Cities Emergency Powers concerning YMC Section 6.06.030(A)(7) Prohibiting Firearms Outside the Home or Business during a declared Emergency by the City was removed. I talked with Yakima's City Attorney and discussed the statement "makes limited additional changes in a new YMC Section 6.06.030(C)" in the Council Agenda Minutes. This statement has to do with if the city in the time of an Emergency may request to the Governor to enact the powers provided in RCW 43.06.220, which as never been invoked since conception and hopefully stays that way and hopefully be removed in the future. There is House Bill 1832 in House Judiciary that has gone no where to have a hearing on prohibiting firearms outside the home or business being unconstitutional ( Washington State Constitution Article I Section 24 Right to Keep and Bear Arms ) Hopefully HB 1832 will be moved this year out of the House Judiciary to a committee that can get it a hearing. We still face a majority in Olympia that opposes passing anything positive on firearms. This is a small victory but at least it is out of the hands of future Mayors and Council. |
|||||||||
|
The_Gunny Regular Member
|
At the start of this thread it mentioned that Spokane Statutes were still being revised or that there was something in progress. I looked but could not find an update has anything new come out regarding OCing in Spokane. Is the city still working on it? |
|||||||||
|
FMCDH Regular Member 
|
Update: Change of Monroe Municipal Code confirmed as given in original thread. This was brought to my attention by my brother who is moving to Monroe. Change actually took place back in February of this year. |
|||||||||
|
Capn Camo Regular Member 
|
REICHlands dog and pony show entry. dittos, except I threw it in the City Attorneys face that they did not HAVE an Ordinance because of preemption and repeal(ed)" 9.41.300 The documents are in another thread, guess I should have posted them here? Admin, want to move them? The City Council lied through their pearly whites about this and we tag teamed them. Bad. I've been lying in wait for this for a year, and am not the only one. Whats needed now is contact with the Legislature to address this chronic disregard for the Authority of the Legislature vested in them by the PEOPLE. Whos with me to go to Olympia and visit a few Legislators? I assume the ones requesting AGO 2008 # 8 would be up for it. TIme to put criminal penalties in law for Council members and Commissioners who flagrantly violate the law. Link to documents to and from the COR Attorney. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=34272&forum_id=55&jump_to=579785#p579785 Ill digitize and post the Council remarks ASAP, Its a hoot! Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 11:54 pm by Capn Camo |
|||||||||
|
ak56 Regular Member 
|
Capn Camo wrote: REICHlands dog and pony show entry... RCW 9.41.810 Penalty. Any violation of any provision of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly. |
|||||||||