Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: SB 5739 Allowing Cities/Towns to prohibit firearms in Parks and Recreational venues

  1. #1
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    SB 5739 Allowing Cities/Towns to prohibit firearms in Parks and Recreational venues

    Introduced 2/13...another one to watch...

    Senators Murray and Kohl

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...5739&year=2013

    10 (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their
    11 respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that
    12 humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws
    13 and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed
    14 by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in
    15 defense of self or others; ((and))
    16 (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium ((or)),
    17 convention center, park, or facility being used for public recreational
    18 purposes, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality,
    19 except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    20 (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW
    21 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
    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

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Ah, a ban on park possession. I am sure the two council members in Oak Harbor had input in this...
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    This should be simple to counter, just need to get a bunch of people who have been attacked in parks to testify that criminals love to use parks to prey on people.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Recent reports of women being attacked should be one of their reason's for not expanding restricted areas.

    Last edited by BigDave; 02-13-2013 at 05:15 PM.
    • 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 Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Should be simple to counter ... it's call preemption.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    Should be simple to counter ... it's call preemption.
    AFAIK, preemption would not matter since this would be a change to state law from the state legislature?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    AFAIK, preemption would not matter since this would be a change to state law from the state legislature?
    Correct.
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    They left in the exemption for CPL holders.... Looks like it is supposed to be a feel good addition to the convention center piece where they can regulate possession but not including CPL holders...
    Last edited by Thor80; 02-13-2013 at 06:10 PM. Reason: Spelling, stupid IPhone...
    Let me make a short, opening, blanket statement. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody - except bad people.

    - Charleton Heston

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor80 View Post
    They left in the exemption for CPL holders.... Looks like it is supposed to be a feel good addition to the convention center piece where they can regulate possetion but not including CPL holders...
    They will soon start referring to it as the 'CPL loop-hole'...
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    CPLs take 30 days and sometimes longer (look @ Spokane) to get, and they don't deter crime, plus removing a concealed weapon from under clothes is not as quick as unholstering it from OC position.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
    Posts
    132
    I view legislation like this as an attempt to get "a foot in the door." On the surface it doesn't appear to have much by the way of teeth, as it exempts anyone who has a CPL (which most of us do).

    However, once they could go back to plastering up signs all around the parks that say "NO FIREARMS" and then in little tiny letters next to it "unless allowed by RCW 9.41.070." I'd be dollars to donuts that there are a lot of people out there who have a CPL, but don't know that they would be exempted because they don't know what RCW 9.41.070 is. All they would see is "NO FIREARMS" and possibly not carry into the park.

    Also, the bill does not include any requirement to conceal, just states that having a CPL is what exempts the carrier. However, when an uniformed park-goer sees you OCing, and remembers the sign they passed when entering the park that says "NO FIREARMS," you can bet this will lead to an increase in 911 calls and more OC harassment.


    It's feel-good legislation with no-teeth, but it gets their foot in the door to expand on it later on. Also note that this bill simply adds parks and recreational facilities to the existing list (stadiums, convention centers), and think of the amount of difficulty we've face in those locations with some local governments..


    Off Topic Rant:
    I still can't comprehend how anyone thinks a "no firearms" sign makes anyone any safer. Like, you have someone who is in the park planning to assault/rob/rape an innocent person. I'm pretty sure they are aware that robbing/raping/assaulting is illegal, yet they're going to do it anyway; why do antis think that a "no firearms" sign is any different?? As if a criminal is going to come to the park with a gun intent on raping a young woman jogger, see the sign and be like "awww shucks, this sign says I can't bring my gun. How will I overpower and rape that jogger without my gun?" and give up on his plan? I can't fathom how they can be so disconnected from reality...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    This is the same logic as the drunk who was looking for his car keys under the street light on the corner. When asked by a cop where he lost the keys, the drunk replied over thee by my car.
    cop: If you lost them over there, why are you looking here?
    drunk: Because the light is better over here.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    AFAIK, preemption would not matter since this would be a change to state law from the state legislature?
    I think the state constitution is the best counter to this. my right to bear arms in defense of myself applies on public property without need for a CPL. any such park style anguage sould violate the state constitution and should be addressed as such.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  14. #14
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    They will soon start referring to it as the 'CPL loop-hole'...
    What about the law enforcement loophole?

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    What about the law enforcement loophole?
    They'll burn you alive.
    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
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Here is the link for public comment on the bill.

    https://washingtonleg.granicusideas....tems/SB%205739
    Last edited by Sparky508; 02-14-2013 at 10:22 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    So these folks want to continue to centralize control, except where it fits their agenda, and creates a patchwork of laws that could easily entrap innocent people?
    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
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    So they want to make it that you have a conceal carry license, and what if later on they change it from Shall issue to May issue, then what?

    And what about all the police calls to take you down at gun point to check you CPL?
    Last edited by jsanchez; 02-14-2013 at 02:11 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky508 View Post
    Here is the link for public comment on the bill.

    https://washingtonleg.granicusideas....tems/SB%205739
    Whose web site is this?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    Whose web site is this?
    Washington States Legislative Public Comment website. My understanding is that it is a pilot program to receive public comment on proposed bills and such. It is also linked to on the page where you can read the bill.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Seattleite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    9

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky508 View Post
    Here is the link for public comment on the bill.

    https://washingtonleg.granicusideas....tems/SB%205739
    Thanks for the link, Sparky508!

    The public comment link asks if you "oppose", "neutral, or "support", and allows a 1000 word comment. The tally (oppose, neutral, support) is usually delivered to senator staff for their daily tally of public comments. The comments themselves are less important than "numbers" in favor, against, or on the fence.

    Occasionally someone reads the comment section (optional). Here's my comment with the "oppose" position. (Spaces and punctuation count.)

    This is contrary to Washington state having preemptory power of all such legislation. Such matters should be left to the attorney general to decide how best to regulate the state's interests,
    and frankly the interests of law-abiding citizen voters. If this power is given to a lower jurisdiction, the content, and intent would likely circumvent the rights of state of Washington. The state would need to spend money unexpectedly to overturn such a notion. This sort of "feel good" legislation does nothing to make people safer, but its unintended consequence would cause people to feel safer while stripping law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. It is unfair and risky to make any citizen believe they are safer with a law that actually makes them a more likely victim. I am frankly surprised that this is even on the table, taking up dedicated activists time, as well as that of the state, in order to keep laws in alignment with the current (more than adequate) legislation.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Here's the email I got from them:

    Welcome to the Washington Legislature's Citizen Comments
    Welcome to the Washington State Legislature’s online comments project. This is a trial program for the 2013 legislative session to see what value it may bring in helping the public provide input to their legislators on the bills under consideration this session. Statistical reports may be generated using aggregate data, but these are in no way a scientific poll or an accurate representation of general public sentiment. Your comments and opinions will be forwarded only to your legislators as input for them to evaluate pending legislation. If you desire direct contact with these or any other legislators, you should contact them directly via mail, phone, or email.
    We ask for some personal information so that we can ensure that you are a resident of Washington and can direct your comment to the appropriate representative. We will not share this information with anyone beyond the Legislature.

    Any questions? Contact us at: support@leg.wa.gov.
    Thank you!
    Washington State Legislature
    This email was sent from https://washingtonleg.granicusideas.com.
    Washington State Legislature, WA

    Unsubscribe from future mailings

  23. #23
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    They'll burn you alive.
    Possibly, but generally the only people careless around firearms, such that they leave an AR-15 on the roof of their car, are cops.

    I sent feedback on that legislature comment site:

    Under the state constitution, it is equally constitutional to ban guns as it is to ban books. A law prohibiting exercise of a constitutional right in public parks will be either struck down by the courts almost instantly or will set a precedent if upheld that would be extremely dangerous.

    More people throughout history have been killed by the malicious application of knowledge than by the malicious application of bullets. Almost any argument that can be made for restricting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens can be made at least equally strongly for banning "dangerous" knowledge.

    And in the end, criminals aren't called criminals because of their obedience to the law. The only people affected by the proposed law would be the people who would never commit a crime in the first place.

    No one is safer when good people are disarmed and bad people aren't. This bill does not promote public safety, it abolishes public safety.
    Last edited by Difdi; 02-14-2013 at 09:04 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Sent email to Kirk Pearson, who's on the committee. We go to the same church. I'll see if I can bend his ear next Sunday.

  25. #25
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    I think the state constitution is the best counter to this. my right to bear arms in defense of myself applies on public property without need for a CPL. any such park style language should violate the state constitution and should be addressed as such.
    You must have very deep pockets and a willingness to spend it....none of the other exempted areas have been challenged in other public venues listed in the current law, why would this addition to current law be any different? Pre emption simply says that its the legislatures decision to decide these matters not local gov't. They can pretty much do what they want....and then see who has the bucks and will to fight it.

    In any case, with only two days to go, this bill will likely die in committee. It is not currently scheduled for public hearing (required) if it is to exit the committee through "executive action". There is little time left to get both actions done (public hearing and executive action)....I think we done with this one.
    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

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
  •