• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
http://www.realityclarkcounty.com/2012/06/22/emergency-ordinance-backfires-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.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
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.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
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.—
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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?
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.)
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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. :banghead:

I laughed.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top