Open carry in parks

hermannr · Jan 25, 2013

adam3176 said:
Yes its illegal law right now For the Simple Fact they didnt outlaw Open carry yet. Thats because of how the system works. It creates the Illegal laws before putting them into operation. The fact of the matter is the plan to make open carry illegal has been ongoing for a long time. And now with these staged OP shootings on a mass scale and it will get Worse, They will ban open carry. When your guess is as good as mine. We are not talking 5 years from now. We are talking Months, As of Right now you dont need a license to carry a firearm, The cities are Ignoring that Fact

https://www.youtube.com/user/adam3176?feature=mhee

I disagree that they will ban OC. It is very possible that they may try...but...I do not think that A1/S24 will allow for the ban of OC...that said, they could possibly get around A1/S24 by allowing anyone to CC without a license, which you know that isn't going to happen.

That is what happened in OH. They would not allow CC, so a bunch of guys went OC and forced the issue. OH's CC law was written just for the purpose of limiting OC, but their courts would not allow them to eliminate OC so they gave those that wanted to carry an alternative with their CC law...I think you will find the same here in WA.

Grim_Night · Jan 25, 2013

hermannr said:
I disagree that they will ban OC. It is very possible that they may try...but...I do not think that A1/S24 will allow for the ban of OC...that said, they could possibly get around A1/S24 by allowing anyone to CC without a license, which you know that isn't going to happen.

That is what happened in OH. They would not allow CC, so a bunch of guys went OC and forced the issue. OH's CC law was written just for the purpose of limiting OC, but their courts would not allow them to eliminate OC so they gave those that wanted to carry an alternative with their CC law...I think you will find the same here in WA.

um... in washington anybody can carry OC and CC with a CPL... no need to get around any laws

OlGutshotWilly · Jan 25, 2013

Grim,
He is referring to what "possibly" could happen in the state, not the current situation.

adam3176 · Jan 25, 2013

OlGutshotWilly said:
Grim,
He is referring to what "possibly" could happen in the state, not the current situation.

I think when SHTF (SOME) Might CC if they have a CPL or not. If its a life and death situation then people will CC for their protection. But thats where the Law will make citizens Criminals.

OlGutshotWilly · Jan 25, 2013

adam3176 said:
I think when SHTF ALL will CC if they have a CPL or not. If its a life and death situation then people will CC for their protection. But thats where the Law will make citizens Criminals.

You do realize you are posting on an OC forum, and making the proclamation that ALL will CC for their own protection:uhoh: Perhaps you are confused as to which forum you are posting in?

rapgood · Jan 25, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Could this be applied to schools too, along with the AG's opinion about when a school is considered a school?

And I tend to have a long memory about certain things, I won't forget your offer......:lol:

Well... schools are in a special class unto themselves. Just about any law that is passed with the intent to protect the little kiddies is not likely to be put to the test. I know I wouldn't put it to the test. Anything that could threaten the little munchkins evokes visceral reactions in people (myself included).

Jeff Hayes said:
What about the Spokane Public Facilities District banning fire arms in the Arena, Convention Center and Inland Northwest Performing Arts Center. They are a Washington State municipality.

I'm not entirely sold on the concept that these are proper bans, but in Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. Sequim the Washington Supreme Court sez it's ok to impose restrictions. I think the case was decided incorrectly, but the Supes' opinions carry a whole lot more weight than mine.

Trigger Dr said:
This also applies to private property that is set aside for public use,ie a 20 acre parcel dedicated to use as a park, but still private property.

Yep.

Jeff Hayes · Jan 25, 2013

rapgood said:
I'm not entirely sold on the concept that these are proper bans, but in Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. Sequim the Washington Supreme Court sez it's ok to impose restrictions. I think the case was decided incorrectly, but the Supes' opinions carry a whole lot more weight than mine.

I will reread PNSPA V Sequim again, I keep going back to where it says "the laws were not laws or regulations of application to the general public" Since the Ron Paul rally was open to the general public they did in fact impose laws on the general public, me.

I believe the Attorneys for PNSPA missed the boat entirely in their argument and thus lost a case that should have never been lost. Egos got in the way they argued if PNSPA could have firearms in the convention center they should have argued that the general public could have firearms in the convention center. In fact that argument has not been made to date that I am aware of.

adam3176 · Jan 26, 2013

OlGutshotWilly said:
You do realize you are posting on an OC forum, and making the proclamation that ALL will CC for their own protection:uhoh: Perhaps you are confused as to which forum you are posting in?

Let me Restate that. If they take Open carry away SOME Might have to Resort to CC as the only way to protect themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/user/adam3176?feature=mhee

sudden valley gunner · Jan 26, 2013

rapgood said:
Well... schools are in a special class unto themselves. Just about any law that is passed with the intent to protect the little kiddies is not likely to be put to the test. I know I wouldn't put it to the test. Anything that could threaten the little munchkins evokes visceral reactions in people (myself included).

I am quite protective of young ones myself.

I was wondering about when a school is used for another purpose and young ones are not the main attendees, like when they hold our Caucasus's there. Not sure if I am ready to be a test case on that though......

kparker · Jan 27, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I was wondering about when a school is used for another purpose and young ones are not the main attendees

No exception in law for that; complain (a) to your local party officials and ask them to choose a different venue and (b) to your legislators.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 27, 2013

kparker said:
No exception in law for that; complain (a) to your local party officials and ask them to choose a different venue and (b) to your legislators.

[h=2]RCW 9.41.280[/h][h=1]Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions.[/h]

(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

The AG's opinion...

For these reasons, we believe the term "used exclusively" in RCW 9.41.280 refers to sole
use, possession, or control of a facility, regardless of the duration of the use.

I am asking more to get a lawyer's perspective.
I will not go to another Republican Caucus (unless they change how they treat, true conservatives like Ron Paul) and don't ever see me going to a democratic one.

The Federal law is unconstitutional yet remains unchallenged by SCOTUS.

gogodawgs · Jan 27, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
RCW 9.41.280

Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

The AG's opinion...

I am asking more to get a lawyer's perspective.
I will not go to another Republican Caucus (unless they change how they treat, true conservatives like Ron Paul) and don't ever see me going to a democratic one.

The Federal law is unconstitutional yet remains unchallenged by SCOTUS.

Actually SCOTUS has made a determination and has seemingly left it to the states. Some states prohibit (WA) some states don't (UT)...

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

(McDonald v. Chicago)

Furthermore, do not omit: RCW 9.41.280

(6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.

hermannr · Jan 27, 2013

gogodawgs said:
Actually SCOTUS has made a determination and has seemingly left it to the states. Some states prohibit (WA) some states don't (UT)...

(McDonald v. Chicago)

Furthermore, do not omit: RCW 9.41.280

I think what SVG was pointing out is a "school" is a school when used exclusively for k-12 educational purposes. A "school' (even though named such, and for that purpose constructed) for the purposes of .280, is not a school when it is not used for it's intended purposes.

The question then goes to: If a church, or another organization, rents the "school" for purposes of other than education of k-12, is it still a school?

IMHO no, it is not a school because it is not being used "exclusively" for educating k-12. I think the AG opinion bears this out, as conversly, a building that is not a specifically built k-12 "school', but is used exclusively to educate k-12 children, than that "other" property is a school for purposes of .280, while it is being used "Exclusively" for that educational purpose.

gogodawgs · Jan 28, 2013

hermannr said:
I think what SVG was pointing out is a "school" is a school when used exclusively for k-12 educational purposes. A "school' (even though named such, and for that purpose constructed) for the purposes of .280, is not a school when it is not used for it's intended purposes.

The question then goes to: If a church, or another organization, rents the "school" for purposes of other than education of k-12, is it still a school?

IMHO no, it is not a school because it is not being used "exclusively" for educating k-12. I think the AG opinion bears this out, as conversly, a building that is not a specifically built k-12 "school', but is used exclusively to educate k-12 children, than that "other" property is a school for purposes of .280, while it is being used "Exclusively" for that educational purpose.

I do understand. A couple of relevant points. The AG's opinion was about other facilities when being used by a school, i.e. the Tacoma Dome during state championships or other stadium or building. It is not relative to an actual school building. Which is why I pointed out RCW 9.41.280 section (6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building. This clearly states that unless you meet one of these 4 sections a firearm is NOT PERMITTED in a school building. Which is quite different from section 1 of 9.41.280 which limits possession on the property in general. Renting the school is not one of the exceptions.

kparker · Jan 28, 2013

See that "OR" in there? No, school facilities are what they are 24x7, the "exclusive use" part is for things like schools renting or exclusively using other facilities that don't actually belong to them.

ETA: Thanks, Gogo, for putting it in more detail than I did.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 28, 2013

gogodawgs said:
Actually SCOTUS has made a determination and has seemingly left it to the states. Some states prohibit (WA) some states don't (UT)...

(McDonald v. Chicago)

Furthermore, do not omit: RCW 9.41.280

Thanks for the quote.

What I am getting at is the definition in itself. Is a school building a school when not being used as a school, because technically us the tax payers lease those buildings for school use. It's those vague laws Rap was talking about.

I realize what the intent was, but since they always construe and go above and beyond "intent", we should look at areas where we can too, even if it is to get rid of these ridiculous laws.

Lopez was the first challenge, to the Federal GFZ, the one that now unconstitutional deals with "interstate commerce" has not been specifically challenged by SCOTUS. Dicta not withstanding.

Open carry in parks

hermannr

Regular Member

Grim_Night

Regular Member

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran

adam3176

Regular Member

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran

rapgood

Regular Member

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member

adam3176

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

kparker

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran

hermannr

Regular Member

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran

kparker

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member