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/summary.aspx?bill=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

Ah, a ban on park possession. I am sure the two council members in Oak Harbor had input in this...

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.

Recent reports of women being attacked should be one of their reason's for not expanding restricted areas.

Should be simple to counter ... it's call preemption.

Batousaii said:

Should be simple to counter ... it's call preemption.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, preemption would not matter since this would be a change to state law from the state legislature?

Alpine said:

AFAIK, preemption would not matter since this would be a change to state law from the state legislature?

Click to expand...

Correct.

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...

Thor80 said:

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...

Click to expand...

They will soon start referring to it as the 'CPL loop-hole'...

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.

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...

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.

Alpine said:

AFAIK, preemption would not matter since this would be a change to state law from the state legislature?

Click to expand...

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.

gogodawgs said:

They will soon start referring to it as the 'CPL loop-hole'...

Click to expand...

What about the law enforcement loophole?

Difdi said:

What about the law enforcement loophole?

Click to expand...

They'll burn you alive.

Here is the link for public comment on the bill.

https://washingtonleg.granicusideas.com/widget/agenda_items/SB 5739

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?

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?

Sparky508 said:

Here is the link for public comment on the bill.

https://washingtonleg.granicusideas.com/widget/agenda_items/SB 5739

Click to expand...

Whose web site is this?

jsanchez said:

Whose web site is this?

Click to expand...

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.