Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: OTish: Emergency Ordinance backfires for Gun Rights in WA...?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kelso, Washington, USA
    Posts
    258

    OTish: Emergency Ordinance backfires for Gun Rights in WA...?

    http://www.realityclarkcounty.com/20...on-gun-rights/


    "Emergency Ordinance Backfires on Gun Rights!
    June 22, 2012
    By RCCadmin

    Story by: Lynda Wilson and Licentia Diligo

    The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The Washington StateConstitution says it even stronger, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired” However, two of our current County Commissioners think otherwise (Stuart and Boldt). An Ordinance that was unanimously passed in October 2005 by the three Commissioners at the time, Marc Boldt, Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris, determined that during a declared emergency, if they thought you “intend” to cause bodily harm you can’t even possess, let alone carry a gun (or anything else that could be construed as a weapon). Mind you, possess means ‘own’ therefore not even able to keep in your own home or anywhere else. This Ordinance 2005-10-03, Section 2.48A.090 (i) references this.

    “An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties”.

    Marc Boldt Dist. 2

    You must understand, that this ordinance does not say specifically that they can confiscate your firearm (or other instrument) but, in order to understand this completely, you must read between the lines. The intent IS to disarm you. Of course, the most important time to carry your gun is at times of unrest andan emergency of this magnitude to declare it as such would be such a time. A natural disaster or a terrorist attack and all things in between all qualify. These are the times when citizens are most vulnerable. So, the disaster occurs, the state of emergency is declared and you strap on your gun. We all are well aware that looting and chaos very often accompany these events. In fact, case in point, during Hurricane Katrina, in an unconstitutional and idiotic move on the elected officials part, they removed, (and at times, forcefully) the guns of the citizens when they needed them most. Many, young and old, were injured by the very officers doing the confiscating.



    NRA video of gun confiscation in New Orleans.

    Marty Hayes, a well-known firearms instructor and owner of Firearms Academy of Seattle indicated there were three issues directly relating to this Ordinance. 1) The 4th amendment constitutionality which gives “the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated…” This ordinance would directly violate this with the word “possess” inserted. 2) The framers of the Constitution were clear that they meant that Lawfully Armed Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in states of emergency, hence the 2nd Amendment. 3) Being the Ordinance is profoundly unconstitutional, some that hold their 2nd Amendment rights dear, would defend their rights to the death. Would we really want to put our police and deputies in such harms way, especially when it is not legal?



    Steve Stuart Dist. 3

    So, back to Clark County… At what point and by whom would the decision be made that the reason I carry my gun was to cause bodily harm. What factors would they use to determine this “intent”. Precisely how could anyone tell what my intent was? As the law stands now, and by the way, what most licensed to carry a concealed gun (CPL) already know is how to legally carry, when to legally carry and where to legally carry. My intent at all times of carrying a gun would only be what it would take to defend my person should the need arise. If I am carrying a legal firearm and it is necessary to use it in self-defense, then the very definition of why I am carrying is to produce bodily harm, doesn’t it? In all of the hours of training with firearms, I have always been told if I carry or possess a gun, I must be prepared to use it to stop the threat. They never advocate merely showing it to my attacker to accomplish this. I must be prepared to inflict harm to stop the threat, in some way or another, fatally if need be, to defend myself. So there you go, my intent is always to stop bodily harm to myself however I can. Does that then give them the “right” to confiscate my gun? According to this ordinance, I think so.

    One note about the timing of the passage of this Ordinance, it was adopted October 3, 2005, merely five weeks after the catastrophic Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans. What does the timing of this say?

    By July 2006, the NRA was a key player in protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens in the country. They strongly encouraged legislation that was passed with broad bi-partisan margins of 322-99 in the House and 84-16 in the Senate that prohibits federal, state and local authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during declared states of emergencies; the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act” (HR 5013). The law now insures that law-abiding gun owners cannot be disarmed by any state or local governments during any declared emergency.

    And, to add injury to insult, the same ordinance also goes so far as to state that all business establishments where firearms and/or ammunition for firearms are sold be closed and that all sales, distribution or even giving away of firearms and/or ammunition cease. (2005-10-03-2.48A (g)). You wonder why citizens have decided that stocking up and storing ammunition is a mighty fine idea. Because, when you need it most, your government (in the name of protection) has decided you don’t.

    Government today has been over-reaching their authority almost on a daily basis. As in this ordinance, they say the regulations and restrictions are to “protect the public health, safety and welfare”. According to this Emergency Ordinance, the Chair of the County Commissioners is the one that calls for the emergency status. That Chairperson is currently Marc Boldt, the very one that made the original motion (meeting minutes) to pass these unconstitutional ordinances in the first place and absolutely infringes on your Second Amendment rights. Are you good with that??

    I suggest we take this to our County Commissioners and ask them to preserve our Second Amendment Rights. The laws on the books already have the capability of arresting someone whom is breaking the law. Carrying your firearm in times of chaos does not meet that standard.

    There is an election for County Commissioners this November. There are good candidates out there running for these positions that will absolutely defend your right to bear arms. David Madore and Tom Mielke are the two that I am confident will do so. We need people in elected positions that will support and defend our constitutions, not those that try to circumvent them. The choice is clear.

    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin



    UPDATE: June 23, 2012

    An online statement from Commissioner Tom Mielke reads as follows: “This ordinance was discussed at a Board Meeting about four months ago and to the best of my knowledge was reversed in its entirety.”
    Tom Mielke

    However our research has shown that there is no record of the ordinance being overturned. A quick review of the County’s Ordinance List and Disposition Table shows no such action. We also contacted County staff and were told by Rebecca Tilton, Clerk of the Board, that this ordinance has not been overturned and is still indeed in effect.

    A comment from David Madore, Candidate for County Commisioner Pos. 2 and lifetime member of the NRA follows. “This ordinance should be repealed. It is inappropriate and unconstitutional as the US Supreme Court confirmed that the right to possess and bear arms for individual self-defense was the central component of the Second Amendment right.”
    Thank you.
    David Madore"


    So I wonder if the person(s) that wrote this article knows about the preemption statute, that even IF the Commissioners pass such a bill, it would be override by the State Constitution.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Th county ordinance is null and void and should be removed (RCW 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300). The state has reserved that power to itself, and the state constitution also says they cannot do that.

    The state does have a law on the books that says the Govenor can proclaim a state of emergency and then specificly (not automatic) restrict the carry of firearms outside the home,,,but that may even be unconstitutional, it has never been used, or tried in court.

  3. #3
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.06.220

    (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;
    I’m proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.06.220

    (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;
    Not really sure you are getting at there but this RCW deals with the Governor pursuant to proclamation and does not delegate down to cities, towns or municipalities. Even in that if challenged it will likely fall do to Washington State Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 24 as stated earlier in this thread.
    • 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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Not really sure you are getting at there but this RCW deals with the Governor pursuant to proclamation and does not delegate down to cities, towns or municipalities. Even in that if challenged it will likely fall do to Washington State Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 24 as stated earlier in this thread.
    Not getting at anything, was just providing a link for handy referance.
    I’m proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Not getting at anything, was just providing a link for handy referance.
    And I thank you for that. I knew it existed, but not where. I usually do not read your posts, your avitar makes me puke.

  7. #7
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    , your avitar makes me puke.
    Me too!
    I’m proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Th county ordinance is null and void and should be removed (RCW 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300). The state has reserved that power to itself, and the state constitution also says they cannot do that.

    The state does have a law on the books that says the Govenor can proclaim a state of emergency and then specificly (not automatic) restrict the carry of firearms outside the home,,,but that may even be unconstitutional, it has never been used, or tried in court.
    Doesnt need to be tried in court, the federal government already passed a law following the katrina fiasco making it illegal for state authorities to do anything of the sort-

    SEC. 557. Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5201) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ‘‘SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
    ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.—
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Cops can't do this or that vs. cops get their azz handed to them by a judge for doing this or that illegally....after the fact....in a courtroom.

    Big difference.

    If this 'law' stays on the books, if it is used as justification, will the county politicians be held accountable for enacting a illegal 'law'? or, will they throw the poor dumbazz cop(s) under the bus?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    Doesnt need to be tried in court, the federal government already passed a law following the katrina fiasco making it illegal for state authorities to do anything of the sort-

    SEC. 557. Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5201) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ‘‘SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
    ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.—
    Only if they meet the requirements it is not an all in one prohibition, unfortunately.

    -CITE-
    42 USC Sec. 5207 01/03/2012 (112-90)

    -EXPCITE-
    TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
    CHAPTER 68 - DISASTER RELIEF
    SUBCHAPTER V - MISCELLANEOUS

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 5207. Firearms policies

    -STATUTE-
    (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 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.

    -SOURCE-
    (Pub. L. 93-288, title VII, Sec. 706, as added Pub. L. 109-295,
    title V, Sec. 557, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1391.)
    • 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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    No one is required to obey an unlawful law.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Only if they meet the requirements it is not an all in one prohibition, unfortunately.

    -CITE-
    42 USC Sec. 5207 01/03/2012 (112-90)

    -EXPCITE-
    TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
    CHAPTER 68 - DISASTER RELIEF
    SUBCHAPTER V - MISCELLANEOUS

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 5207. Firearms policies

    -STATUTE-
    (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 -
    In short if a state would stop accepting federal money then this law does not apply.

    I laughed.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    I know the writer of this blog and she is at the county meeting today. She just reported to me that the County Commissioners don't know how it got into the ordinance and they will have it removed, it will be ready by July.
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666


    Here is the author's testimony today.
    Live Free or Die!

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    No one is required to obey an unlawful law.
    +1
    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)

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Here is the author's testimony today.
    "I don't remember doing anything like that"

    I am starting to wonder if he ever reads what he signs or if he just looks at the titles of the bills...
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    "I don't remember doing anything like that"

    I am starting to wonder if he ever reads what he signs or if he just looks at the titles of the bills...
    They don't read them even on a national level. When you going to join us at Bham Starbucks again?
    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)

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    They don't read them even on a national level. When you going to join us at Bham Starbucks again?
    Maybe here soon, its about time I make the trip up.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

Posting Permissions

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