Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 244

Thread: Open Carry in the news KHQ interview with Jeff Hayes

  1. #76
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by shad0wfax View Post
    The chief law enforcement officer of the state of Washington has already issued a formal written opinion on this issue.

    AGO 2008 No. 8 - October 13, 2008
    http://atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinio...chive&id=21188



    The AGO Opinion goes on to talk about a Washington Supreme Court case, Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342, 144 P.3d 276 (2006), where the municipalities are granted exemptions to preemption under 9.41.290 but only when acting in capacity as a private business owner and only in narrow respects.



    So the long story short is that if the city leases the property out to a private party, they can impose certain conditions on the private party in the lease, which may restrict firearms on the premises, or have specific regulations for firearms on the premises (such as all actions locked open and unloaded during a gun show on city property) but that they cannot restrict the general public under normal business.

    So unless the Ron Paul rally had a no firearms clause in the lease, the city cannot restrict firearms. Call me crazy, but I doubt that the Ron Paul rally organizers would have asked for a no firearms clause in the lease. And as it was not a gun show, I doubt that the city imposed certain restrictions on the method of firearm carry or entry with a firearm.


    I've been 'round and 'round with the Spokane Arena and the Spokane Convention center about this and each time their tactic changes. As there's already a formal written opinion on the issue, we're never going to get results unless we have a large number of open carriers denied access to the convention center during a paid admission event for which we have tickets, and then file a class-action suit against the City of Spokane. (It would have to be an event that is not an outdoor concert, of course.) With the AGO already having an opinion on the issue, you'd have to seek an injunction against the city in the suit to get anything changed, as appealing the decision would be pointless. Preemption is preemption and it is already settled law. We just need to get the city to respect that.
    All good, except that OC'rs are not a recognized "Class" and would be unable to accomplish this, as I understand it... BIANAL
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  2. #77
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    28,282
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    --snip--

    hadji I looked to see where you live, could have fooled me! you being so passive aggressive! thought you were from the inter circle in Deep Liberal Seattle.
    Not to challenge you, just to make sure not a troll
    Living outside the immediate geographical area in no way limits having an opinion or sharing ideas on the subject. Neither does it make someone a troll. That and I'm sure there are very pro RKBA people in Seattle; some undoubtedly support OC.

    We are all in this together - what happens in one state has a ripple effect on other states.
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  3. #78
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,911
    Sounds to me like the only way Spokane is going to change is if someone is cited ends up in court. Only when they loose, due to "preemption" will they back off.

    JT59, OC'ers can be recognized as a Class if it can be shown that they are all similarily effected by the City's actions. Would probably require some financial harm as a result of their being denied access, arrested, etc. as class action suits are civil actions for redress.

    Of course IANALBIWA456EOLAO

    (I am not a lawyer but I watched all 456 episodes of Law and Order
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    2,270
    The Spokane Public Facilities District operates the Spokane Convention Center and is a municipal corporation. It is an independent taxing authority and a taxing district as defined in the state Constitution. IMHO Because SPFD is a municipality they must comply with RCW 9.41.290 and 300.

    The question is can SPFD add no guns language to their lease or license agreement. If so the question is how would the public know, I asked to see the lease and for a copy of the lease and they refused saying it was private and I could not see or have a copy.

    Some of the doors had 8 x 11 pieces of paper that referenced Title 10 section 10.10.050 and said "No person shall bring into any City public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, guns, knives or other such devices which are weapons or apparently capable of use as weapons". The door we entered through did not have a sign on it. Clearly SMC 10.10.050 violates state preemption and this was what we were told to start with

    BTW I did record the conversation.

    I will be contacting counsel today to see how to proceed with this.

    One last thing the ushers asked us if they were going to be on our blog, so they are aware of OCDO.

  5. #80
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Living outside the immediate geographical area in no way limits having an opinion or sharing ideas on the subject. Neither does it make someone a troll. That and I'm sure there are very pro RKBA people in Seattle; some undoubtedly support OC.

    We are all in this together - what happens in one state has a ripple effect on other states.
    Well said Grapeshot.

    I have been dismayed at the rudeness some posters of shown out of staters here. I was never treated like this in Virginia or California or the other states even when I mentioned how things in my home state as a point of reference.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #81
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    The Spokane Public Facilities District operates the Spokane Convention Center and is a municipal corporation. It is an independent taxing authority and a taxing district as defined in the state Constitution. IMHO Because SPFD is a municipality they must comply with RCW 9.41.290 and 300.

    The question is can SPFD add no guns language to their lease or license agreement. If so the question is how would the public know, I asked to see the lease and for a copy of the lease and they refused saying it was private and I could not see or have a copy.

    Some of the doors had 8 x 11 pieces of paper that referenced Title 10 section 10.10.050 and said "No person shall bring into any City public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, guns, knives or other such devices which are weapons or apparently capable of use as weapons". The door we entered through did not have a sign on it. Clearly SMC 10.10.050 violates state preemption and this was what we were told to start with

    BTW I did record the conversation.

    I will be contacting counsel today to see how to proceed with this.

    One last thing the ushers asked us if they were going to be on our blog, so they are aware of OCDO.
    How the hell can your city make a contract with your tax payer dollars and claim "it's private", something stinks.

    Great job Orphan and Thor....I have a feeling your works wont be fruitless.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #82
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    28,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    The Spokane Public Facilities District operates the Spokane Convention Center and is a municipal corporation. It is an independent taxing authority and a taxing district as defined in the state Constitution. IMHO Because SPFD is a municipality they must comply with RCW 9.41.290 and 300.

    The question is can SPFD add no guns language to their lease or license agreement. If so the question is how would the public know, I asked to see the lease and for a copy of the lease and they refused saying it was private and I could not see or have a copy.

    Some of the doors had 8 x 11 pieces of paper that referenced Title 10 section 10.10.050 and said "No person shall bring into any City public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, guns, knives or other such devices which are weapons or apparently capable of use as weapons". The door we entered through did not have a sign on it. Clearly SMC 10.10.050 violates state preemption and this was what we were told to start with

    BTW I did record the conversation.

    I will be contacting counsel today to see how to proceed with this.

    One last thing the ushers asked us if they were going to be on our blog, so they are aware of OCDO.
    The lease would be a public document whether recorded or not as it is with the city. It is not "private", it is a public record. Your request was the same a FOIA submission - would just formalize that in writing, directed to the city.

    Always presume that you/we are being read by the other side........'cause we are!

    Being caused to leave or not being admitted gives you standing, is actionable.
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  8. #83
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The lease would be a public document whether recorded or not as it is with the city. It is not "private", it is a public record. Your request was the same a FOIA submission - would just formalize that in writing, directed to the city. See earlier post.

    Always presume that you/we are being read by the other side........'cause we are! Of course they are.

    Being caused to leave or not being admitted gives you standing, is actionable.
    Absolutly

  9. #84
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    It is pretty clear you have a bone to pick and unable or unwilling to understand the concept of the RCW 9.41.300 addressing weapons possession is restricting Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities and not private parties,
    I believe I understand RCW 9.41.300 completely, including paragraph 2,b,i.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    you will not find a law prohibiting a private entity in restricting guns rights, unfortunately.
    Ah, but more importantly, I will not find a law allowing the restriction of gun rights, an area that the state claims preemption.
    An important distinction, in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    hadji I looked to see where you live, could have fooled me! you being so passive aggressive! thought you were from the inter circle in Deep Liberal Seattle.
    It is indeed interesting that our world views so often color our perception of intent.
    Perhaps you have been misled by my handle, hadji.

    "passive aggressive"?
    I apologize for coming across that way.
    It is just that the "public" meetings of the PFD board occur in what is really
    just a rather small conference room, around a single table.

    Kevin (CEO), Matt (Arena) and Johnna (Conv Center & INB) are all intelligent, reasonable people.
    But they deal in facts, and have little patience for presentations that are not well thought out,
    or are simply emotional appeals.
    If one is going to present something to the board,
    one had better have all of the facts in hand,
    and be able to present one's case in a logical, reasonable way.


    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Not to challenge you, just to make sure not a troll
    A "troll"?
    Hardly.

    Let's just say that I have a vested interest in the outcome of this issue,
    along with the repeal of SMC 10.10.050.

  10. #85
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    49
    Orphan:

    If you, or others, attend the PFD board meeting, end your presentation / remarks
    by requesting a remedy that is clear, concise and measurable.

    Merely complaining about your treatment will not produce any action; it will simply be noted in the minutes.
    You must make a request that is "actionable".

    Keep in mind, the PFD is not able to repeal the SMC; you will have to go to the city council for that.

    hadji

  11. #86
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    Orphan:

    If you, or others, attend the PFD board meeting, end your presentation / remarks
    by requesting a remedy that is clear, concise and measurable.

    Merely complaining about your treatment will not produce any action; it will simply be noted in the minutes.
    You must make a request that is "actionable".

    Keep in mind, the PFD is not able to repeal the SMC; you will have to go to the city council for that.

    hadji
    Good points, but as far as I understand it any local ordinances that are preempted are legal nullity's and are unenforceable, if you are charged undr such a statute preemption would be your primary reason to get the charge dismissed and any arrest vacated.
    Removal of the signs and documented training of the staff for the various facilities would be a good start. A public apology for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations would also be good.

  12. #87
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,507
    As to my comment about looking where someone was from was in response to a passive aggressive post toward me and in kind I offered one in return but apparently some lost the conversation.

    hadji is clearly associated with the PFD board or council likely digging for information, good or negative, we will see.

    The Spokane Public Facilities District does not do that now.
    Kevin (CEO), Matt (Arena) and Johnna (Conv Center & INB) are all intelligent, reasonable people.
    But they deal in facts, and have little patience for presentations that are not well thought out,
    or are simply emotional appeals.
    If one is going to present something to the board,
    one had better have all of the facts in hand,
    and be able to present one's case in a logical, reasonable way.
    If you, or others, attend the PFD board meeting, end your presentation / remarks
    by requesting a remedy that is clear, concise and measurable.
    Merely complaining about your treatment will not produce any action; it will simply be noted in the minutes.
    You must make a request that is "actionable".
    Keep in mind, the PFD is not able to repeal the SMC; you will have to go to the city council for that.
    hadji
    Let's just say that I have a vested interest in the outcome of this issue,
    along with the repeal of SMC 10.10.050.
    Stay with the facts that Spokane has an ordinance that is preempted and we have citizens that have been denied access unlawfully. The talk about a private party being allowed to prohibit firearms while true, that is not what occurred it was done by the convention center security.

    Orphan you can rest assured with

    RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption
    RCW 9.41.300(2)(b)(i) Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.
    State Attorney General Opinion 2008 No.8
    Chan et al v. Seattle
    Last edited by BigDave; 03-07-2012 at 11:05 AM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  13. #88
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Removal of the signs and documented training of the staff for the various facilities
    would be a good start. A public apology for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations would also be good.


    Ah, but this will not happen.
    The PFD Board will claim their hands are tied by SMC 10.10.050,
    and that you are requesting something based upon a question of law
    that they are unable/unwilling to interpet.

    Perhaps a better remedy would be:
    to request that the board obtain a legal opinion / recommendation
    from the city attorney regarding the removal of the signs,
    to forward the city attorney's recommendation to you,
    and inform you what action they intend to take regarding those signs,
    based upon the city attorney's recommendation.

    You should request that this remedy be acted upon before the next board meeting.

    Be sure to leave your contact information with the board secretary.

    It would seem that preemption would favor removal of the signs.
    Based upon a favorable recommendation from the city attorney,
    you may then request the documented training / apology.

    But do not hold your breath on a "public apology".
    You may find it more profitable to request an apology in writing,
    in a letter from the Board directed towards you.

    BigDave: your conjecture that I am "...associated with the PFD board,
    likely digging for information..." is inaccurate.
    Think of me as (your) "friend of the court".

    Orphan:
    All of this applies only if you intend to present at a PFD Board meeting.
    But that will not get the municipal code changed.

    Getting arrested is certainly an option, but perhaps not the most wise one.

    Perhaps a less stressful option is to propose to the city council
    that SMC 10.10.050 be revised, along with the recommendation of the city
    attorney to do so.

    The RCW's cited by BigDave, above, will be researched by the city attorney.
    I think you will gain a favorable recommendation from him.

    hadji

  14. #89
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,091
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    hadji is clearly associated with the PFD board or council likely digging for information, good or negative, we will see.
    I think he's an employee who knows how things work, is tied to 'following policy', and is trying to give you guys hints on what to do to challenge it successfully.

    Sometimes 'you people' are too paranoid for your own good.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  15. #90
    Regular Member fetch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    251
    I have been communicating with my district council member and he is aware of the situation. Currently there are three (of the seven) council members and two city attorneys who know who we are and where we stand.
    We need to get our paper work together and present it to the council.
    I have also meet our new mayor a couple of times, but have not discussed OC.
    Last edited by fetch; 03-07-2012 at 01:23 PM. Reason: I felt like it.

  16. #91
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Sometimes 'you people' are too paranoid for your own good.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by hadji
    Ah, but this will not happen.
    The PFD Board will claim their hands are tied by SMC 10.10.050,
    and that you are requesting something based upon a question of law
    that they are unable/unwilling to interpet.
    But presenting the fact(s) that all municipalities are preempted by RCW 9.41.290 should be enough for the PFD to take action, no? Or at the least go to their legal and say the SMC is invalid and PFD is NOT in compliance per .290.

    The PFD may be overseen by City of Spokane and their codes, but even the PFD cannot ignore other State/Federal laws which supersede Spokane laws...or at least they shouldn't.

  17. #92
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    49
    Stretch:
    Your questions sound reasonable, and well thought out.
    So, I will answer them.
    Please do not shoot the messenger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    But presenting the fact(s) that all municipalities are preempted by RCW 9.41.290 should be enough for the PFD to take action, no?
    No. That is not how the board works. Simply supplying information is not "actionable". One must request a specific action be taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Or at the least go to their legal and say the SMC is invalid and PFD is NOT in compliance per .290.
    It is not their "job" to go to legal and claim a particular code is invalid.
    I know this might sound cynical. And it does not sound "right".
    I concur.
    I am just letting you know how it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    The PFD may be overseen by City of Spokane and their codes, but even the PFD cannot ignore other State/Federal laws which supersede Spokane laws...or at least they shouldn't.
    This will be seen as a "question of law".
    If they are requested to do so, they will refer this question of law to legal.

    There are two questions / issues in this thread:
    Orphan and other(s) rights were violated when they were asked to leave.
    The law is clear.

    SMC 10.10.050 is unconstitutional.
    The law is clear on that too.

    Orphan's experience provides him with 'standing' on this issue.
    He now has a legal reason (responsibility?) to attend both the PFD Board meeting,
    and the city council meeting.

    He will not gain much, or possibly any, satisfaction from attending the PFD Board meeting.

    But, because of his standing, he can gain a spot on the city council agenda.
    Not just during public comment, but an actual agenda item.
    This means the council will have to deal with the issue.

    If he, or his representative, can present his case in a factual, reasoned manner;
    if he will heed some simple suggestions on protocol and presentation,
    he (and all of us) will win.
    Last edited by hadji; 03-07-2012 at 06:46 PM.

  18. #93
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    Again, with respect: The Spokane Public Facilities District does not "rent" or "lease" the Spokane Arena;
    they specifically state in their use agreement that "The parties understand this agreement constitutes a revocable license and not a lease."
    (Use Agreement, Spokane Public Facilities District, Section 29, Paragraph 1)

    An important, if subtle, distinction.

    A legal definition of a license is: A right to enter onto land or property and use it, without any ownership rights being conferred.

    This distinction would not seem to grant the licensee any special priviledges regarding the State Preemption (RCW 9.41.290).
    That's a very good point there. The city is forbidden to ban firearms, and the loophole to that, a private entity leasing/renting the space having a rule against firearms (mandated by the city as a condition of renting/leasing) wouldn't apply to a mere license, since it is (supposedly) the temporary transfer of ownership rights that makes a private property type firearm ban legal on what would otherwise be city property.

    But a license is the city trying to have its cake and eat it too. They retain all rights and get rent too

  19. #94
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,507
    One of the frequently overlooked procedure done by those addressing change in ordinances or dealing with some government officials is as hadji suggest, if one does not request action then it is assumed all you wanted was for them to listen and/or read and nothing more and often it ends there.

    Stick with the incident involving the parties, address the law on that violation and avoid what if's or issues about a private party prohibiting firearms as this did not happen in this case.
    Have everything typed up to including Council Members, Mayor, City Attorney and the city clerk for the record.
    Request the City Council to seek review by the City Attorney and Repeal of the offending ordinance/s and respond in a reasonable time ie 30 days or next council meeting.
    And by all means attend until settled, do not rely upon someone else no matter how helpful they might seem.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #95
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,343
    hadji: Thank you, I agree with your assessment completely. I already have experience (not Spokane) with boards and other sub-council problems...the people on the, lets say, parks board, that have been given a particular prohibition (let's say no firearms, like in Seattle) may or may not favor that particular ordinance, it really does not matter. A city ordinance is past by the city council, and must be removed by the city council, but going through the board to obtain standing in council is a really good idea.

    The big thing about being an agenda item, is like hadji explained, the item has to be handled...it may not be handled in the way you would like, but they cannot just brush it off. If you go into a council meeting, and make public comment, they can ignore you if that is what they wish to do. Yes, you will get the opportunity to speak, but that may very well be all that happens until you bring legal pressure. (which costs everyone money)

    My suggestion is similar to BigDave's. Take copies, at least one for each member of the board (and council when you get that far) RCW 9.41.290, RCW 9.41.300, The Washington State AG opinion, and the Chan et al V Seattle, the Court of Appeals ruling.

    Good luck, just sorry I live so far away.

  21. #96
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,584

    Update:

    SAF is reporting the WA Supreme Court has refused to hear Chan v. Seattle thus ending Seattle's challenge.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #97
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    saf is reporting the wa supreme court has refused to hear chan v. Seattle thus ending seattle's challenge.

    yes!

  23. #98
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    SAF is reporting the WA Supreme Court has refused to hear Chan v. Seattle thus ending Seattle's challenge.
    Good news indeed!

    It will be interesting to see how or even if it is covered in the media..... Maybe Deros can que up a couple of his folks.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  24. #99
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,661
    SAF is reporting the WA Supreme Court has refused to hear Chan v. Seattle thus ending Seattle's challenge.
    So that ends all administrative prohibitions on guns by municipal corporations in the State of Washington, right?

    No loopholes? "Oh, that's not a published opinion" or "Oh no. It only applies in King County" or any other tricks, right?

  25. #100
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    Ah, but this will not happen.
    The PFD Board will claim their hands are tied by SMC 10.10.050,
    and that you are requesting something based upon a question of law
    that they are unable/unwilling to interpet.
    Then the argument could be that they are trying to enforce a law that has been repealed!

    WA's preemption law goes further than to say the city can't create such a law, it specifically REPEALS any law that violates said preemption.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •