Difdi:
You have a good grasp on the situation, and the implications of the wording.
This wording, and its implications, will likely not be needed,
but it is an additional vector should the city attorney provide an unfavorable opinion.
That would be unfortunate, but not unrecoverable.
If we get into a war of definitions and intent on the statutes themselves,
we may be able to appeal to the likes of
Stoh Brewery Co. v. Department of Revenue,
104 Wn. App. 235, 240, 15 P.3d 692, rev. denied, 144 Wn.2d 1002 (2001),
a statute should be interpreted according to its plain and unambiguous language,
and the Department “[should] glean the legislative intent from the words of the statute itself…”.
Right Wing Wacko:
You are correct. Since the law is unconstitutional, RCW 9.41.290 specifically repeals it,
in the last sentence of that paragraph.
But the point will be moot, at least to the PFD Board.
Remember, they will see this as a 'question of law',
which they are not qualified to rule on;
it is outside the scope of their authority / jurisdiction
to rule on a 'question of law'.
Regardless of how plain the language may appear to us,
it will be useless to argue, in the legal sense, this particular point.
The goal of attending a Board meeting is to request them to get a recommendation
from the city attorney regarding removal of the signs.
Not quite.
But it does mean we are likely to win a challenge of administrative prohibitions
on guns by municipal corporations in the State of Washington.
Last edited:
