Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Saw This in WWU Western Front

  1. #1
    Regular Member Wolfebane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    113

    Saw This in WWU Western Front

    http://westernfrontonline.net/news/1...roughout-state

    This article makes it seem like that you can ONLY concealed carry in WA state parks. I am interested in writing a, I guess, Letter to the Editor, (never done that before), since I am a student attending WWU. And I just want to make sure I am in the right before I do anything. It is 100% legal to open carry in WA state public parks? Can I get some relevant RCW's from some people who know them much better than I do. (I just want to be certain of my facts before I write a "public" letter.)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    You are correct in that one does not even need a CPL to OC in a park. Washington State Law RCW 9.41.300 states where it is not legal to carry period! Anywhere else with the exception of "Outdoor Music Festivals" is fair game to OC without a CPL including National(In Washington, National Parks follow state law of which state it is in, so some national parks can be off-limits to carry)/State/County/City parks. The only authority the State gives to enact "possession" restrictions is outlined also in RCW 9.41.300, which also EXEMPTS CPL holders from any "possession" restricted areas. Same goes for folks that have a CPL and want to conceal.

    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (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.
    Last edited by Thor80; 03-31-2012 at 05:57 PM. Reason: Added note to National Parks

  3. #3
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    She got the cost of the permit wrong also...it's $55.25 not $60.

    OC in any park you can CC, with or without a permit.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117
    Local police or sheriff departments can grant a concealed weapon permit after an applicant passes an extensive background check, Rollin said.
    She also got the name wrong. There's no such thing as a "concealed weapon permit" in Washington. It's correctly referred to as a "concealed pistol license" or "license to carry concealed pistol".
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Same goes for folks that have a CPL and want to conceal.


    I understand the argument, but would recommended not making a preemption argument in your letter. Preemption does not apply to state agencies. The state cannot preempt itself. That's a legal absurdity.

    A few years ago the state Parks and Recreation Commission changed their firearms rules - they liberalized them. I will research and see if I can find the meeting minutes where that happened. It will make your case for you. Stand by please . . .

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I understand the argument, but would recommended not making a preemption argument in your letter. Preemption does not apply to state agencies. The state cannot preempt itself. That's a legal absurdity.

    A few years ago the state Parks and Recreation Commission changed their firearms rules - they liberalized them. I will research and see if I can find the meeting minutes where that happened. It will make your case for you. Stand by please . . . [/COLOR]
    Actually, not quite true..The Legislature is the pre-empting party....if you are not of the Legislature...you are not going to write your own law.
    Last edited by hermannr; 03-31-2012 at 08:58 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I understand the argument, but would recommended not making a preemption argument in your letter. Preemption does not apply to state agencies. The state cannot preempt itself. That's a legal absurdity.

    A few years ago the state Parks and Recreation Commission changed their firearms rules - they liberalized them. I will research and see if I can find the meeting minutes where that happened. It will make your case for you. Stand by please . . . [/COLOR]
    I was not making a pre-emption case. I was stating that one can OC or conceal anywhere not restricted by .300 or "outdoor music festival". I was also pointing out that the state does allow for "restricted possession" in a few places but Exempts CPL holders from those restrictions. Ie: one cannot OC in a convention center without a cpl if they have restricted carry at said center. One COULD OC at said center if they had a CPL or since they have a CPL could also choose to conceal at said center and still be in compliance with state law...

    -Thor
    Last edited by Thor80; 03-31-2012 at 10:07 PM. Reason: Spelling and Festival addition

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    I'm confused. The article you link to doesn't say anything about state parks.

    Or did you mean "all parks in Washington State"
    Last edited by deanf; 03-31-2012 at 09:38 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    See this thread for information about the State Parks and Recreation Commission changing their rules in 2003 to allow carrying of firearms.

    I made the erroneous 9.41.290 preemption argument in that thread back in 2003. My understanding of the law has matured in 8 years . . .

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfebane View Post
    http://westernfrontonline.net/news/1...roughout-state

    This article makes it seem like that you can ONLY concealed carry in WA state parks. I am interested in writing a, I guess, Letter to the Editor, (never done that before), since I am a student attending WWU. And I just want to make sure I am in the right before I do anything. It is 100% legal to open carry in WA state public parks? Can I get some relevant RCW's from some people who know them much better than I do. (I just want to be certain of my facts before I write a "public" letter.)
    Are you referring to 'state' parks or city parks as the article refers to?

    The following piece of misinformation should be countered every time Mayor McGinn says it:

    "A park is no place for a gun,” McGinn said. “We are facing a public safety emergency fueled by gun violence.”
    Mayor can you offer once piece of actual evidence in an objective manor that says we are facing a public safety emergency fueled by gun violence? Perhaps Mayor McGinn you are confused with actual gang and convicted felons committing violence with all kinds of weapons including but not limited to guns. These felons and gang members certainly attack law abiding citizens at parks and other places. A park or any place I have a legal right to be is certainly a place for me to take my gun in order to defend my life from these gang members and felons.

    Mayor, to help you decide what an actual emergency is the dictionary definition is as follows:

    sudden,urgent,usuallyunexpected occurrenceoroccasionrequiringimmediate action.
    Mayor are you saying that if I go to a Seattle park right now a gun will be violent towards me?
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 03-31-2012 at 09:56 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Are you referring to 'state' parks or city parks as the article refers to?

    I'm not the OP, but I took that as meaning "Parks" in Washington State. Dog Park, State Park Campgrounds, City Parks, etc.... Maybe he'll chime in but I don't think he meant it to be "State Parks" only?

    -Thor

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Courts throw out gun ban in city parks throughout state
    • 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. #13
    Regular Member Wolfebane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor80 View Post
    I'm not the OP, but I took that as meaning "Parks" in Washington State. Dog Park, State Park Campgrounds, City Parks, etc.... Maybe he'll chime in but I don't think he meant it to be "State Parks" only?

    -Thor
    As I understand it, but since this is a very localized publication I'm sure the author was only "thinking" of parks in Bellingham, but I meant it to be parks in Washington state not state parks OF Washington.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Local police or sheriff departments can grant a concealed weapon permit after an applicant passes an extensive background check, Rollin said.

    Quote Originally Posted by geojohn View Post
    She also got the name wrong. There's no such thing as a "concealed weapon permit" in Washington. It's correctly referred to as a "concealed pistol license" or "license to carry concealed pistol".
    And it's also not "can" grant it's must or, rather, shall issue. She makes it sound like there is discretion on the part of the issuing agency. True in some places but not in Washington:

    RCW9.41.070 (1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling.

    Emphasis added. Link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.070
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  15. #15
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Local police or sheriff departments can grant a concealed weapon permit after an applicant passes an extensive background check, Rollin said.



    And it's also not "can" grant it's must or, rather, shall issue. She makes it sound like there is discretion on the part of the issuing agency. True in some places but not in Washington:

    RCW9.41.070 (1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling.

    Emphasis added. Link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.070
    Although, as you note, it appears that the author was quoting "Rollin", and should have cited the inaccuracy..

    Local police or sheriff departments can grant a concealed weapon permit after an applicant passes an extensive background check, Rollin said. The permit costs $60 and can take up to 30 days to receive.
    Last edited by jt59; 04-02-2012 at 10:43 AM.
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Washington, USA
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Although, as you note, it appears that the author was quoting "Rollin", and should have cited the inaccuracy..

    Local police or sheriff departments can grant a concealed weapon permit after an applicant passes an extensive background check, Rollin said. The permit costs $60 and can take up to 30 days to receive.
    The author of the article misinterpreted my statements regarding the issuance of a WA CPL in that paraphrased section. I had explained that WA is a shall-issue state, wherein any applicant who passes their background check and pays to play will receive their CPL. This article made no mention of open carry, though I did discuss it in the interview for the story. Having just read the article, it also appears that the author took the direct quotes out of context as well.
    Last edited by k.rollin; 04-05-2012 at 02:13 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    She got the cost of the permit wrong also...it's $55.25 not $60.

    OC in any park you can CC, with or without a permit.

    Actually it is $52.50 now
    If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
    --- Arkansas Supreme Court, Wilson v. State (1878)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    106
    That article is about as bad is this one.


    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nicole30m.html


    But you can be out and packing in less than an hour.
    If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
    --- Arkansas Supreme Court, Wilson v. State (1878)

  19. #19
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Actually, that is not quite true either. RCW 9.41.290 says that the "State of Washington" is the pre-empting party.



    The RCW does not reserve the entire field of firearms regulation to ONLY the legislature. You are correct, only the legislature can enact statutes with criminal penalties. However, the way I read RCW 9.41.290 is that if a state agency chose to prohibit firearms in facilities under the control of that agency, they could do so. But it would not be a criminal act to possess a firearm in those state controlled facilities.

    One example of this regulatory authority that has been used by a state agency not the legislature is the fact that a licensed day care center in Washington must prohibit firearms on the premises as a condition of their license. You will find that in Washington Administrative Code, not in RCW. A licensed day care center that does not ban firearms on the premises can lose their state issued license - and the legislature has nothing to do with that, although they could overrule the Washington Administrative Code by enacting a statute.
    And Just like the Oregon University system "rule"...the court can throw out any regulation that is contrary to state LAW. Yes, I firmly believe that if someone chalanged our Board of Regents, the result would be the same as Oregon's, same the the day care system. WAC's are not LAW...RCW's are.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    That's true. And you can be packing when you go in to get your permit, too!
    Yea but she was referring to the permit.
    If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
    --- Arkansas Supreme Court, Wilson v. State (1878)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The RCW does not reserve the entire field of firearms regulation to ONLY the legislature. You are correct, only the legislature can enact statutes with criminal penalties. However, the way I read RCW 9.41.290 is that if a state agency chose to prohibit firearms in facilities under the control of that agency, they could do so. But it would not be a criminal act to possess a firearm in those state controlled facilities.
    Not without a constitutional amendment or an alteration to the specified list of places in the statute where firearms are prohibited (and the prohibitions in the statute get a bit iffy if you find yourself needing to engage in self-defense in an area where firearms are banned by statute).

    The state constitution places limits on what the state can do. The way the state constitution phrases it, it's arguable that even a convicted felon has a right to keep and bear arms.

  22. #22
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would you care to explain, then, how the state agency that licenses day care centers (not sure if it is DOL or another agency) forces day care centers to prohibit firearms in order to obtain a day care license?

    Would you care to explain, then, how the state universities prohibit firearms on their campuses?

    All of these prohibitions are in WAC - Washington Administrative Code.
    They do it because they are not/have not been/challanged in court.

    Just like in Oregon. The Oregon state university system did the same thing...when it finally was challenged in court, the University system lost. The Oregon state Supreme Court said that the University board could not formulate a rule (same as a WAC) that was in direct conflict with the state constitution and state law.

    And Oh yes, the state of Colorado did the same, court results were the same.
    Last edited by hermannr; 04-08-2012 at 07:05 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    It would be interesting to see that in court in Washington.
    If we can Sanders back on the bench.

    Although I don't believe the state can preempt itself they would have to follow their own state law in my opinion, otherwise the law means nothing.
    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)

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If we can Sanders back on the bench.

    Although I don't believe the state can preempt itself they would have to follow their own state law in my opinion, otherwise the law means nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    They do it because they are not/have not been/challanged in court.

    Just like in Oregon. The Oregon state university system did the same thing...when it finally was challenged in court, the University system lost. The Oregon state Supreme Court said that the University board could not formulate a rule (same as a WAC) that was in direct conflict with the state constitution and state law.

    And Oh yes, the state of Colorado did the same, court results were the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    It would be interesting to see that in court in Washington.
    Yes it will be interesting to see it make it's way in our court. I think a primary question is who write's the WAC and did the legislature give them the intent to codify these rules limiting a Constitutional right. It certainly would not pass strict scrutiny and I sincerely doubt it would even pass intermediate scrutiny.
    Live Free or Die!

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Yes it will be interesting to see it make it's way in our court. I think a primary question is who write's the WAC and did the legislature give them the intent to codify these rules limiting a Constitutional right. It certainly would not pass strict scrutiny and I sincerely doubt it would even pass intermediate scrutiny.
    That's the problem with many of these things someone has to be the test case, often times that means being temporarily labeled a law breaker. And most folks just cant afford the bother.
    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)

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •